Fat is a type of crazy

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Years ago when I was still actively using the Ouija board and my daughter was about 4 years old I asked, for fun, what, if any, advice our friendly contact might have for her.  This was his reply:

"Life is like a game.  Learn to play by the rules."

My contention here is, and has always been, that reality is what it is and that it functions as it does . . . despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

Given the above then what are the rules of the game?  And are we playing by the actual rules or have we made up our own?

I'll quote Twain again:

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.  It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

That statement is confirmation that we have made up our own rules.  So why does it seem so difficult to recognise the fact that some of the rules we make up about the way reality works aren't in fact the real rules?  Part of the answer lies in another eloquent and perceptive Twain quote:

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

The way I would interpret that statement using different terms is to say that we all have beliefs about reality and that the fatal mistake we often make is not recognising that we treat our beliefs as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality.  Once we conclude that a particular belief is a bedrock condition of reality we 1) no longer question it's validity and 2) due to the unwavering conviction we hold about a particular belief then any idea which opposes it is automatically labeled "false" and rejected without further questioning.

That, my friend, is the textbook definition of close-mindedness.  It is when one does not question the validity of their own ideas and rejects all others out of hand.

 

So why would anyone want to learn what the real rules of the "game" are?  Well, if you're going to play a game wouldn't you want to "win?"  If playing the "game" gets you results you don't like ("losing") because you're playing by rules which are erroneous and made up, and therefore can never produce the desired results, and you're scratching your head wondering how things could go so horribly wrong, wouldn't you be interested in dumping those erroneous rules and then adopt and follow the actual rules which would produce the results you want ("winning")?

The question really is that simple.  What's your answer?

Following are two widely held beliefs:  1) the rules of life cannot be known and 2) anyone who claims to know is a liar.  Again, these beliefs are not seen as beliefs about reality but rather viewed as conditions of reality.  So, if I, or anyone else, were to claim that I know what the rules are no one would believe.  Not only that but anyone making such a claim would be severely critised and ridiculed.  Perhaps even nailed to a cross.

 

Now to address the content of your post, Fat is a type of crazy.   I'll begin with your provided explanation that you gave in which you attempt to fit individual freedom into the theory of evolution.  Everything you wrote is, in essence, "making up the rules" since all of it is 100% conjecture and contains little logic.  Ultimately none of it reflects how reality truly works.  Given that verdict I won't try to point out any of the fallacies of your explanation via posing any of the many questions which your thesis prompts.

 

Next would be this quote:

"I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology."

Fortunately you've qualified your belief with the word "doubt" and so left yourself some wiggle room for being wrong.  I'm here to say that you couldn't be more wrong.  The Seth material goes into excruciating and extensive detail.  But I understand that since you've never read any of it then you wouldn't be aware of the extent of it's detail.  In fact the material is detailed to the extent that there were a number of scientists so intrigued that they had personal sessions with Seth.

 

The quality of the Seth material is considered such that the University of Yale, not by any means an insignificant university as it is ranked No. 5 in the U.S., houses the Seth material in it's archives.  This is anecdotal but I've heard that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale.  Take a peek if you wish.

Yale Archives - The Seth Material

 

And now this final quote:

"Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial."

 

What you're asking can and can't be done.  I can provide a Cliff Notes version of the rule book that can run a page.  But the rule book is, in fact, much more extensive than what can be fitted onto a single sheet of paper.  There's more to consider though.  Do you play chess?  The rule book for chess isn't that great in length.  Any one wanting to play the game can easily read and understand the rules.  Actually playing the game is quite another thing.  Especially if one's intention is to master the game.  That would require perhaps a great dealing of reading.  Reading which would explain in minute detail how to play the game.  Actually playing the game is obviously instructive, too.  And for some they may excel without every reading a single book.

 

Now if you're still asking whether or not learning rules of the "game" would be beneficial then reread the above.  But who knows, you might prefer to just wing it in life.  Take things as they come and deal with whatever as it pops up.  To me that's living life as a leaf blowing in the wind.  It's a reactionary approach.  My preference would be to be the captain of my own ship.  That's a proactive approach.

In closing I'll satisfy your request for a one-pager listing some of the rules of the "game."  Some of it you may find intriguing but you will also find that in and by itself it's quite useless for the purpose of utilising it in practical terms.

The Physical Universe As Idea Construction

 

Energy...
... is the basis of the universe.
Ideas...
...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality.
Idea constructions...
are transformations of ideas into physical reality.
Space...
... is where our own idea constructions do not exist in the physical universe.
The physical body...
...is the material construction of the entity's idea of itself under the properties of matter.
The individual...
... is the part of the entity or whole self of which we are conscious in daily life.
It is that part of the whole self which we are able to express or make "real" through our idea constructions on a physical level.
The subconscious...
... is the threshold of an idea's emergence into the individual conscious mind. It connects the entity and the individual.
Personality...
... is the individual's overall responses to ideas received and constructed.
It represents the emotional coloration of the individual's ideas and constructions at any given "time".
Emotions...
... are the driving force that propel ideas into constructions.
Instinct...
... is the minimum ability for idea constructions necessary for physical survival.
Learning...
... is the potential for constructing new idea complexes from existing ideas.
Idea complexes...
...are groups of ideas formed together like building blocks to form more complicated constructions in physical reality.
Communication...
... is the interchange of ideas by entities on the energy nonphysical level.
Action...
is idea in motion.
The senses are channels of projection by which ideas are projected outward to create the world of appearances.
Environment...
...is the overall idea constructions with which an individual surrounds himself.
Physical time...
..is the apparent lapse between the emergence of an idea in the physical universe (as a construction) and its replacement by another.
The past...
...is the memory of ideas that were but are no longer physical constructions.
The present...
...is the apparent point of any idea's emergence into physical reality.
The future...
... is the apparent lapse between the disappearance of one idea construction and its replacement by another in physical reality.
Psychological time...
...is the apparent lapse between the conception of ideas.
Aging...
...is the effect upon an idea construction of the properties of matter of which the construction is composed.
Growth...
... is the formation of an idea construction towards its fullest possible materialization following the properties of matter.
Sleep...
... is the entity's relative rest from idea construction except the minimum necessary for physical survival.
The physical universe...
... is the sum of individual idea constructions.

I'll add a few more:

There are only two things to think about:  what is wanted or what is unwanted.

All issues are the same issue.  They all work by the same principles.

Argue for your limitations and they're yours.

Freedom is the basis of all life.

 

More closing comments . . .

"I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there."

You are in the process of solving that puzzle every single day simply by living life.  In life all of the answers are contained.  You figure it out as you go along.  That's one of the reasons you are, granted thoroughly unbeknownst to you, here in this world to begin with.  Now if you'd like to use the fact of leading a busy and demanding life as an excuse to not further your "education" then you would have to explain me.  My life is no less full than yours.  You may be amazed to learn how much reading one can get done sitting on the crapper. 

Advice on how to live one's life?  This simple statement encapsulates it in a nut shell.

"Don't worry, don't hurry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."

Thanks for the detailed response. I guess you are saying freedom is the basis of life given the concept that we create our own reality.

There's 2 steps I see - 1 can you control or influence what's inside you and 2 if you could is there evidence that that could influence the outside world.  

1 The concept of controlling thoughts, or whatever mental or emotional inner ideas one might control, has seemed impractical to me because it's like and endless game of 'Whack a Mole'. I think our thoughts and emotions are totally tied to our bodies and an attempt to higher consciousness or whatever,  is liking trying to control our arms and legs and toes and fingers. I think it's best to let things be, but be aware of ourselves, and see what can be learnt. Learning probably just satisfies our logical mind anyway, and if anything is going on through life, it is at a deeper level that I can't influence and control. 

2 I don't see indications of my thoughts or direction influencing the outside world  though there have been serendipitous events which give me pause. My conclusion, like for 1, is that it is not something I would look into further as I don't see it as a likelihood of being correct nor something I am likely to be successful at even if it was correct -  if anything just being a hopefully good healthy person might send out a better feeling than otherwise. But I don't have an indication that that's a thing.

So it's not simply say laziness or busyness as such that makes me look no further but a belief that it would not be productive.

On a different topic we used to use a ouija board as kids - I saw it work..no one was pushing as we used an object that would fall over if pushed and there were different people - though I didn't think it was spirits,  it did make me consider that our deeper thoughts could transpose into spelling certain messages, at the time. 

38 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I got all those from the clip in the post that I replied to .

I was stating what the clip contained .

Watch the 1 minute clip to see examples

 

If all you see in that video is bad things then I guess you are a cup half empty kind of guy 

1 hour ago, plus7 said:

Are you sure western/american smiles are really sincere ?

 

For some reason a video turned up on youtube about this guy. How he was minding his own business and a guy said he'd like to take photos of him in different poses - in an office, as a doctor etc. Got a tiny payment if I recall. Next think he knows he's internet famous. Is often stopped in the street etc. 

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Older men lusting after their younger female  neighbour .

Racial abuse .

Threats of violence

Homophobic abuse  

"Comedy" written by two White men born in the 1930's

I don't recall some of those plot lines in Love Thy Neighbour.

I know being an Asean Now member it's hard to imagine older men lusting after younger women.  The comedies of that time such as Benny Hill made fun of the man. Sure there was a bit of sexism in there too that wasn't ideal but most people got the picture that it's just a bit of p i s s taking and yes people like to watch shows with pretty girls - then and now. 

If there were threats of violence in the show I am sure they did not advocate it and the message was 'Racism and Violence are bad OK'.

There was some homophobic stuff in that time which did have a touch of malice - even members of Monty Python said they regret some skits as they were a bit much - but again gays were relatively hidden and maybe over the top gay characters such as Mr Humphries in 'Are you being Served' humanised gays and probably led to more acceptance.

39 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Slavery was also deemed acceptable at one time, what’s your point

You could say there was never an ability to say 'Slavery is a thing of it's time' and somehow that meant that those who took slaves get a pass. 

Shows like  'Love Thy  Neighbour' had good intentions and showed life how it was and pointed out the idiocy of racism. To a young audience though it might somewhat shocking to them to see that type of interaction and might seem racist and barbaric and they might not get what life was like - where name calling and life in general was taken less seriously by most for good or bad.    

6 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

My grandmother loved that show too,  It was very popular, It was not banned or even criticised at the time , the series ended as it had run its course. The "ban" occured 40+ years later and not after complaints from black people. But as a result of wokies desperately looking for anything they could take offense at on behalf of others

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Best of all there was a popular  TV   sit com in the UK called "love thy neighbour" I would imagine most people have heard of it, surprisingly it is banned .  I say surprisingly because the very essence of the program was to highlight how ridiculous the racist attitude of the main character was  He was never portrayed in a positive light and always ended up being shown up as a narrow minded bigot. 

No other TV program at the time was pouring scorn on racists , often the best way of attacking bad attitudes is to laugh at the perpetrators .   Yet years later it was "banned" despite it having been discontinued and pretty much forgotten about.

Yet another example of misguided and ignorant wokism 

 

In Australia there was a show called Hey Hey It's Saturday and they did a skit with Black Face on which Harry Connick Jr was a judge. He protested and noted he is from Louisiana and there was a long history of making fun of black people with black face. The guy who did it was Sri Lankan and meant no harm as I am sure the people in the Minstrels show did not. But I don't think you have to be woke to see the problem with blackface in the United States.

On the other hand I agree on Love Thy Neighbour. You nailed it. I saw Jim Jeffries, who is normally excellent, do a bit criticising the show and I felt he missed the point.

Having said that if you wanted to be a little bit woke there is a kind of subtle inference that the racism is all a bit of fun so I can see it might get a bit of heat from those who are not used to seeing such interactions. The term Nig Nog too was .. well.. a bit strong shall we say. It was actually still on television in Australia in the last ten years or so. 

Western women can be a bit too communicative, involved, into everything, wanting to do stuff all the time, controlling - give me space woman. Thai women tend to be far more relaxed and easy going and gentle and fun in a way I like - and then there is their appearance which makes them more appealing. 

So I have been a member of Club Thai Girls.

Lately I am balancing that off as I find thai girls in comparison can be a bit empty and shallow in a way I find hard to define - there's a blankness. Used to put it down to language but think it's more than that. Oh well. Swings and roundabouts.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"Science is what it is."

 

Science is what men have made it.  The same with religion.  You'd be amazed at the parallels between the two.  From rigidity of thought all the way to fanaticism and more.

"As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others."

 

My ideas do resonate with some here.  Evidenced by the reactions to some of my posts.  They'll never resonate with everyone but that's only common sense.  I'd be foolish to have such an expectation.  I do fully understand the types of people my ideas wouldn't resonate with.  Those people who restrict themselves to their self made, limited boxes and never dare to tread foot outside of their confines.

"For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined."

I've never suggested that science's theory of evolution and freedom are intertwined.  My point was that the theory is based on a select set of information and that it does not account for any other information.  Nowhere does the practical application of the theory take into account freedom.  Evolution is said to be determined by the theory of natural selection.  Natural selection, by it's own definition, cannot incorporate freedom.  So what happens to the idea freedom?  It's conveniently excluded because it's a puzzle piece that can't be made to fit into the theory of evolution puzzle as constructed.  Too many of the puzzle pieces would have to be rearranged.  Or even discarded and replaced.  Personally, I'd discard all of it.

Now since you're the science guy and you believe that the theory of evolution is correct then where does individual freedom fit in?  Now this is the important part.  You will refuse to answer that question.  You'll ignore it.  Or you'll argue that freedom doesn't exist.  Or it doesn't apply in this instance.  Or you'll make up some reason or another which will not be backed up with proof.  Better to just not answer it.

Your non reply will be no different than the correction VincentRJ made to patch together the theory of the Big Bang.  First it was a Big Bang created from nothing.  Well, that couldn't hold logic so the theory was changed to a condensed ball which contained the entire universe-to-be.  When I asked VincentRJ what medium this ball existed in I got no reply.

That's what you science type folks do when challenged to explain in greater detail your own scientific held beliefs.  You can't show how they actually work so you quietly move on.  But then you turn around and suggest to me that perhaps I should take a different aim to make my ideas more plausible?  When challenged to make yours plausible you skedaddle.

Here's another point regarding my ideas.  Do you really think it possible that I could cover the entire ground of an alternate view of reality and provide full explanations as to how it all works in a few posts?  How many books do you think one needs to read just to get a PhD in physics, or astronomy, or biology, or in any other branch of science?  By the way, the books on the theories I present have already been written.  Would you care to download them if I supplied them to you?  LOL

And another point?  Do you think anyone who takes these courses asks questions?  Isn't questioning a vital part of learning?  A vital part to discovery?  Again, I don't see you asking any questions about anything I write.  Here's yours, and all of the other science types cookie cutter response to different ideas:   "Ah, duh, where's your proof, fella?"  Sometime I feel like I'm talking with one of those dolls with the pull ring coming out of it's back.  You know, you pull the ring and the doll says something.  You pull it again and it repeats what it said the first time.

Let's just be blunt.  You wouldn't give a new idea more than a sideways glance, let alone put any real thought into it.  Why?  For one, because if it's not proven then it automatically receives the stamp of rejection and gets unceremoniously tossed into the rubbish bin.  For another, it's the belief that many science types fanatically subscribe to:  only science, using only the scientific method, can discern the truth of reality.  What a load of rubbish.

I'd genuinely be surprised to get a reply to this post.

 

I'll give it a go. Evolution and freedom. To be free suggests a choice.

Historically they were not linked. An amoeba doesn't choose but reacts - one was born more sensitive to light and became better adapted and evolved and became in a sense more free.  

In the recent past humans could train their brains or something to become better adapted and in a sense freer but that's not evolution or genetic change but just working to become better adapted in our lifetime. Not passed to kids.

In the short term future or maybe now we can genetically manipulate ourselves to become better adapted and increase our freedom. So by using science we may be able to evolve and become more free. I am not sure if I am addressing your point about the connection between freedom and evolution. 

I have said before that this forum does not require proof as long as people acknowledge they have an idea they want to share that is just that - an idea. I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology. I have had a look at some of the information put forward on this site and it was interesting but too much swirling around with words and abstract ideas - life's too short to go there. The small amount I read about Seth was a bit that way. Stop playing games Seth. Tell us what is - no need to be poetic or wistful - if you know you know.  If my approach to this is deemed limited that's fine. I spend all day with complex things at work. A theory has to inspire, resonate, draw me in - I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there. Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial. 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I can't believe you read my entire post and you're right back with your rote "rigorous scientific analysis" condition before others can believe it.  I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything nor do I care whether or not they choose to accept any of the ideas I offer.  The only thing of importance to me is that the ideas I hold to be true have practical application in my most practical life and work for me.  Why the hell do I need science's blessings before I can use a practical idea that works?

Science has it's view of reality.  Science's ideas have undoubtedly manifested in some wondrous things.  Great.  I love it.  I rejoice with science.  But, since no one is ever right all of the time, and everyone has their imperfections then in those areas in which I disagree with science's ideas I will not rejoice with science but rather challenge them on their conclusions.  Anything wrong with what I'm saying yet?

On the other hand I am free enough to explore ideas in a way that science doesn't allow itself due to it's rigid "scientific method" approach.  I'm smart enough to recognise the limitations of that approach.  I find many ideas to be true and do not wait to put them to use until science sanctifies my findings which, again, may and probably never will come in my lifetime.

Now I offer up different ideas here which taken together form a very different view of how reality works.  I'll contrast that viewpoint with the other viewpoints here.  Show me how your ideas work and I'll show you how mine work.  What becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that with science so many theories that are even accepted as fact don't hold water.  They can't be shown to work to any great detail.  Again, how do you mesh freedom with evolution?  You won't touch that.  Neither will any other science minded person.  Why?  Because you can't.  There is no place for individual freedom within the theory of evolution.  Well, damn it, then it's bogus.

Again, I offer a different, and in my honest opinion, a much more accurate view of reality than that which science or religion is able to offer.  Not only is it accurate but it accounts for, as much as I can tell, everything.  It doesn't omit obvious aspects of reality that science kicks to the gutter because it's a puzzle piece that they can't fit.

Again, what blows me away is that both science and religious types won't even take the time to consider an ideas validity.  That, to me, is rigid thinking.  Setting boundaries for acceptable thought.  Not a single idea residing on the outside of their paradigms gets in.

I've said this before, the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Without subjective reality your precious physical could not exist.  Do any of you even attempt to understand that concept?  Are any of you inquisitive enough to ask questions as to why or how that would work?  Hell no.  It flies in the face of your protected view of reality and you dismiss it out of hand with the mechanical retort of, "prove it."

Are you people truly inquisitive?  I say no.  I can meet common people on the street that are far more open minded than science types.  Science types are another level of close minded thinkers perhaps even more so than the religious types.  Try to at least ask some questions rather than simply standing on and defending your hallowed ground.

Science is what it is. Of course science should not have special rules or conditions. It doesn't look at your idea and think about it. It is just a mechanism that says likely or not likely based on proof.  

As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others. For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined. Not in terms of known and measurable forces. But if you can show that your theory is a better fit, without knowing exactly what is causing it, then that's something. A few words on this page are cheap. 3 pages on this page are too much.  If you are serious that you have a complete formed theory then write a book, explain how it works as far as you can, be succinct and explain why your theory is necessarily a better fit to reality. 

Or thirdly accept your idea is just at the idea stage.  You say you don't care what others think so no worries.

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Once more . . .

The only thing i rail against with science minded folks is their rigidity of thinking.  It truly is not different than the rigidity of religious thought.  Both set their boundaries of acceptable thinking and no matter what you can't get them to venture outside of their boundaries.  For the religion acolytes it's the word of God.  Anything else they trash.  For the science acolytes it's proof.  No proof and it gets trashed.

You see, Fat is a type of crazy, I've realised long ago that there is so much more . . . so much more . . . that lays outside of either of those two realms of limited thought and neither are expansive enough to contain all of that other information which exists.  I simply cannot imprison myself like that.  My personal propensity is to follow ideas and explore where they lead me, no matter where that brings me.

Now this does not at all mean that I willy nilly believe in anything.  Quite the contrary.  For one an idea has to make sense.  It has to have airtight logic.  Most importantly it has to show that it's practically functional in the world.  Show me an idea and then show me how it works in practical terms.  If you can't then I'll reject it.

But perhaps more important than any of the above considerations which must satisfy me it has to include everything.  All must be accounted for.  Freedom, for instance.  You may disagree but freedom is the very basis of existence.  All existence.  A theory such as evolution does not account for freedom at all.  Natural selection is a determinative force which does not allow for my freedom.  I, the individual, have no say, no choice in my own experience.  Natural selection decides for me.  And according to religious belief it is God who decides for me.

If you or anyone else is willing to construct and accept a reality in which the individual does not have the freedom to determine and create their own lives in every respect as they see fit through their choices in order to fulfill themselves then bless you, sir!  But that is a reality I most strenuously reject to the marrow of my bones.

My sole effort in engaging with those science minded folks is to get them to at least try and expand their thinking.  For God's sake there is more to existence that what can be proven.  To deny ones self the rest of reality because it falls outside of what has been or can be proven is a choice which is beyond ludicrous to me.  I would never willingly confine myself to such a limited existence and experience.

One last comment.  Who the hell says that one cannot be science minded and at the same time follow unproven yet worthy ideas?  I do both without a problem.  And again, my time here is short.  Too short to wait for the demands of science to prove my existence and my experience before I am allowed to accept it as real.  Knowledge is everywhere and it's yours and everyone's for the taking.  I'll take however much I can grab from wherever it exists.

What I was saying in my previous post is that if you are correct about your theory, but can't prove it to others, that doesn't make it less correct. But what is affected is your ability to communicate to and convince others. That may not worry you but to do that requires a rigorous scientific analysis to show others that it can be proven.

There have been many throughout history who had a correct idea but not the proof because technology or their own brains  could not keep up. So when you say there is so much more to evolution or other theories you are basing that on thought and feelings. Not something that can be proven by science. So either your theories are wrong, or they are right and you have to cop it that the concept remains a feeling or a faith or an idea, and that it is quite reasonable that others don't believe it too.  

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Easy.  What is your belief about death?  We know science hasn't proven that one.  But assuredly you have your own belief about what becomes of you, or not, at that moment.

Not sure what you mean by science hasn't proven death. Plenty of evidence that we die. Not much that we live on. Evidence from those that came back to life, say on the operating table, or people talking about past lives, is normally interesting but disappointing.  

Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence. 

I like your point that given we have a limited life span we can't wait for science to discover everything so you can theorise and here's hoping you can find new things. But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us. 

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll need to address this in a separate post.

The sky is blue.  That statement is not a statement rooted in bias.  It's a statement which accurately reflects current reality.  Am I biased in my posts about Trump or am I accurately reflecting current reality?

If you want to take that question further I suggest we do that via PM.  I would be more than happy to enlighten.

Whether it is about religion or politics I judge someone on what they actually say and do and if they are in reality helping their flock.

I appreciate that all politicians are flawed - stories recently about the massive covid support fraud because of inadequate government systems shows that no one is focussed on the right things.

But there's flawed and then there's actual selfish efforts that can be a threat to democracy.

This is best addressed in the news forum. Some of those guys can probably make better arguments about this than my good self as they have done more research. I'll be happy to see you debate with them.

PC gone meowed! News Corp falls for ‘students think they’re cats’ hoax. Twice. (msn.com)

Fake news. Actual story behind paywall.

Bad girls can have the sweetest gentlest voice and be slim and cute and look after you like a king and then BAM ... I married one and divorced one. 

Tonight many years on as friends we were chatting about supermarket prices .. bad girls often mellow out and become good girls as they get older. 

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Please do so.  I'm game.  This thread could do with a good and apropos tune now and then. 

At the risk of being accused of going seriously off topic here are 2 songs.

Social Fools from Hardcore No 1  About how freedom can be limited by our own actions and inactions.

If you obey society's rules
You will be society's fools
You'll obey and then disobey
You'll disobey but then you'll obey
You thought your mom and dad were fools
You never wanted to listen in school
Now your mind won't go where you want to take it
You got a ride but you're not gonna make it

DEVO - Social Fools - 1978 - YouTube

Bottled Up from hardcore No 2 About how our health can be affected by our inhibitions and lack of freedom

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Okay, so you're showing off your good taste in music.    Freedom Of Choice wouldn't be my preferential choice (granted, it helped make your point).  I'd prefer this one, off of that same '78 Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! LP.

Perhaps that album title is a fit for this thread, too?  Perhaps we've been thoroughly and grossly mistaken all this time in that God created Man when in fact he did not.  He created Devo.  And we are all Devo!  Anyway, it's something to ponder on in this mystery we call life. 
 

 

Love this album. The idea that just like everything else in the universe we are falling apart i.e. devolving not evolving.

Can recommend the two Hardcore albums that came out which has stuff from 1974 to 1977 that didn't make the cut. You would think they might poorly compare but they are both the best. 

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm going to set aside the entirety of your post, for now, and focus on the most important statement within it.  Not only is it the most important statement but it's a kernel of absolute truth.  You are to be commended for arriving at that most accurate of conclusions.

". . . we have absolute freedom in terms of thoughts . . ."

No truer words have ever been spoken.  Now here's the money question: What do thoughts do?  In order to avoid having the question sound too ambiguous I'll ask it in a more pointed way.  Do thoughts create real effects?

The short answer to your final question for me is, based on available information, no i.e. no mechanism whereby I think something and it influences the behaviour or actions of people or objects. If I be nice, positive, good, bad, ugly to people it influences how they will treat me, but if I sit in a laboratory and try and levitate something, or try and influence the universe to give me good parking space, or make other good things happen, I don't think it will work. 

Pretty weak jokes.

There is a way to do it. Think of Borat. The first movie. Most jokes are politically incorrect and he makes fun of the left and right. Yet most on the left and right loved it. Ricky Gervais to a degree too. Talent can still shine through.

Tough though on the less talented.

Some youth have always been opinionated and holier than thou but now they have the megaphone and constant self reflection of the internet, and it makes everyone think too much. If you watch an old episode of On the Buses, say, you can see the youth may have a bit of a point on some of the jokes but there's still a decent laugh there. People got back then that it's nothing too serious. 

Benny Hill was made fun of as far back as the eighties by Ben Elton for being sexist and a bit old hat yet Benny somewhat endures because, though women were often seen as a sex object,  the joke was always about himself and his attempts at getting women rather than the women themselves. 

Corporations and programmers will always go where the money is so if there is sufficient demand for something it will make its way back. 

I have a friend who I used to see a lot who works at a liquor store. He's a gentle guy and an alcoholic but that's a different story. They are told not to stop anyone under any circumstances. People get sacked if they do. To do with insurance. So bogans go into stores and just walk out with a nice bottle and they hope the shopping centre security is nearby. 

13 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Scam waste of time. The only people who benefit  financially from  CCs are the credit  card companies. Every single  cent you claw back or redeem (buying things you didn't  need) you could have bought cheaper with cash or debit card. Points! LOL

To address your main point though except for some utilities, and some tradesman looking for cash jobs which I reject, I find there is seldom discounts for cash or debit card. For those  that do the extra fee is normally the same as the points. I think businesses for a long time accept that people want to use new technologies and there are advantages for record keeping and not having to muck around with cash. Obviously though in Thailand sometimes cash is the only practical payment method for some small businesses. For those businesses that can accept card but offer discounts to avoid tax I would say don't support them.

6 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Tell me about it, I’m a Carlton supporter… ????

I don't follow it much but as a former Collingwood supporter who has a vague memory of 1970 and strong memories of 79 and 81 when Carlton kicked our ass it kind of hit the spot. Sorry about that and go Doggies. 

11 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Scam waste of time. The only people who benefit  financially from  CCs are the credit  card companies. Every single  cent you claw back or redeem (buying things you didn't  need) you could have bought cheaper with cash or debit card. Points! LOL

You'd be surprised. 

My HSBC card has no annual fee and I get a $100 voucher for $20,000 spent. Not amazing but free. Citibank has an annual fee of AUD $150 but they are constantly giving offers where you can get $50 or $100 vouchers. They are doing it hoping you'll take on additional credit. You just need to be disciplined in paying amounts back each month. I never buy things I don't need as the points can be used for cash back and supermarkets and similar. 

Throw in free product and travel insurance. 

I agree on American Express. They have big annual fees and many businesses charge extra to use them as there fees to businesses are much higher.  Got rid of it years ago but I suppose you can make that work too if you find businesses willing to take it and you can get enough points. 

On 8/20/2022 at 10:21 PM, KIngsofisaan said:

We kept all our US cards and we use them all the time for everything.

 

Keep zero balance at the end of the month on all cards

 

At the end of the year have enough points for 2 flights back to the US

 

US Thai bank for ATM, VISA Money, operating cash, although bulk of cash is in US banks

 

 

Strange thumb or weird photo.