Fat is a type of crazy

I was just dispelling the myth that Australia is basically rural with farmers as far as the eye can see. He is probably just having a laugh. Des Moines and Iowa sound charming and a nice place to go. Most Australians live in cities much bigger than most US cities. I liked San Diego - it didn't seem that big back then in 93 but it's been a while.

I take a little bit of umbrage at the comparison with Iowa which I think of as sort of a generic middle of America farming 'nothing much' state. The biggest city in Iowa is Des Moines with around 200,000. The population of Melbourne and Sydney would put it at no 2 and 3 in the list of populous United States cities only behind New York. The difference with Australia is the space in between. I have sometimes thought how odd a forum like this is in terms of never seeing or hearing the voice of participants. We may laugh with disdain if we saw and heard some of the more aggressive members while others might be surprisingly sophisticated or macho or whatever. I sometimes think you are a wannabe Englishmen. Evelyn Waugh or Kingsley Amis may be role models.

Jetstar's isn't the classiest airline to book but it's one of few that fly direct Melbourne and Sydney to Phuket. Sale on now - booked a return next year for $330. Not bad. Tickets in October to January this year though are going for $2000 bucks due to pent up demand and everyone having Jetstar vouchers to get rid of. You pay extra to pick your seat so it should've been clear cut who had what seat.

I take your point. I think in some ways it's best to leave this topic to those who have an opinion about what god is - rather than those who dissect the opinions and outlooks of the believers. I hereby retire from this topic and leave it to those who have something godly or spiritual to say, as pushing back on such ideas based on my idea of logic, doesn't seem to be useful.

This post is not a direct reply but a broader comment on the discussion. If someone is trying to explain something quite detailed and those who reply are a bit critical with the same old science and proof arguments - I can imagine it can seem a bit pointless. An artist might have a discussion with a scientist but get bored or frustrated if the scientist kept bringing it back to methodical questions rather than giving new ideas a chance to resonate and develop. If, though, the artist makes definitive claims such as 'I am 100 per cent free' that sets off a defensive mechanism in the scientific mind and raises issues that need a response such as how is it being defined and what are the implications of such freedom. If someone said something like 'I feel my beliefs are leading me on a path towards freedom and I get insights that sometimes feel like actual freedom' that doesn't need follow up as it's more talking about an experience rather than a definitive fact. It's the same with a discussion of science. If someone says 'I appreciate scientific method but life is short and I feel what I am experiencing is real and here it is ..' that's fine in my opinion and the discussion doesn't have to go to proof. If someone though comes across as too defensive to the point of saying science is wrong, a definitive statement, or making statements about the application of science that can seem wrong, not to push back can feel like logic losing to faith. Criticism of scientists, or where scientific discovery is leading, or whether the lack of a formal morality to counter science may lead to bad things are fair points to raise but..again..if it's couched in definitive black and white terms I feel the achievements and benefits of science, and the shortcomings of alternative forms of morality and or of ways of finding the reality of life, can be raised as a counterpoint.

The $80 billion figure does make it way bigger than it has been for at least generations. This article from 2018 shows funding had been cut in the 90's but reached a dollar peak of $14 billion in 2012 and then slowly reduced to 12 billion in 2018. In 2021 it was 12.6 billion. How the IRS Was Gutted — ProPublica Biden is adding $80 billion over a number of years - unless I am misinterpreting this, that is by any measure a huge increase that can revolutionise the department, and if well spent is much needed.

Hummin has a good point and I think it's good to have doubt but you have your right to believe things based on your own experience. You say you are 100 per cent free. I am not sure what your definition of being 100 per cent free is - sounds scary if you did control everything in your world so you could do what you like with no concern or repercussions. If that's not what you mean then it sounds like your freedom has limitations. Can someone actually control their thoughts and ideas? Sure, we can influence them by our actions and lifestyle, but not in a complete way. Discipline controls your actions not your deeper thoughts in my opinion. Would someone who is 100 per cent free, that can control their mind and as such control the outside world, have the ability to make mistakes. That just shows that control of the mind would encompass something huge - not just lessening random thoughts or something similar. If someone could control the outside world by their thoughts they must have to be concerned they might think the wrong thing and cause damage. You say science does not put worth on life. What is the standard or measuring stick of worth to which science might have an opinion? Worth to who? If someone's life has worth to me then that is that - I would rather admit I am not sure if it has some objective worth than say that life has worth because someone told me it is so. You say science says freedom of choice is an illusion. Science doesn't say there is no freedom of choice. Sure, biology makes us what we are, but we are self operating and can choose to buy this or that brand, or do this or that. Science doesn't preclude this. Though the biological imperative pushes us in a certain direction this is tempered by our experiences and our free choices. Some here criticise science by cherry picking examples while not acknowledging the massive positive achievements and findings in the last 100 or 200 years and this includes vaccines. It's fine and sometimes correct to criticise the greed of business or the flaws of an individual but to be dismissive of the achievements and the wild success of science, compared to religion and spirituality, is to not to see reality in my opinion. I am talking success that can be measured and seen.

The term tax cheats would more commonly be used to those who evade tax in the first place but those not paying their debts are a big problem too. The third big problem is existing loopholes such that many corporations, and those who can afford the best advice, can find offshore and other solutions to pay a lower marginal rate of tax that many average wage earners. All three problems can be helped by beefing up and funding the IRS with 1. smart well paid staff to increase audits at all levels but mainly at the top, 2. tax specialists who can identify loopholes and propose a fairer tax code, and 3. IT specialists and new computer systems that can increase the current poor technology to better data match and to identify evasion and find those who can pay their debts and choose not to. Biden's new funding of the IRS with an additional $80 billion can help this happen. If done correctly it should bring in additional taxes of multiples of this.

I am anti racist .. but still a little bit racist from time to time. I mean in thought not in deed. News Flash: People can often be annoying and I might generalise when I shouldn't. Happy to here you don't. Having said that, probably all cultures have certain common, but not all encompassing, annoying characteristics. I think you like Bill Maher - he's got his controversial views on aspects of Muslim culture but not Muslims themselves. The line between racism and cultural or religious profiling on the one hand, and making realistic observations about characteristics held by a higher percentage of people within a particular culture compared to a different culture, is problematic and fraught with difficulties. You say you are prejudiced against right wingers - don't you mean you disagree with their ideas and the application of the ideas. That's not prejudice unless you are making unfair generalisations. I think it tends to become prejudice when it gets personal, and you sense it can affect your way of life, making you defensive and more likely to make assumptions about many when the problem may be with the few.

There is though in terms of the situation rather than in the targeting or humiliation of an individual by a racist joke. In reality we are all a little bit racist and everything -ist when it comes to those who are different, or perceived to be different, from us. We are all learning, become frustrated by others, sometimes justified sometimes not. I bet you have thoughts that are -ist against a range of types of people that are different. Maybe you are prejudiced against people of a particular political persuasion. A bit. The humour is in two different people finding common ground and coming to terms with differences. Because there is likely to be common ground. There is also likely to be ongoing differences based on race, sexuality, whatever.

Come on Gamma. Don't judge us by those who go to an Andre Rieu concert. That would be like judging Americans on those who attend a... Andre Rieu concert. We have some good comedians, and hold our end up given our lower population, as we do for sports and acting. Australians in general have a good sense of humour - it's shown in the way we don't take ourselves too seriously or think we are no 1, and as such, are less likely to think we are so important to need extreme ways to show patriotism and power. We do have riverboats in my state - they are a bit smaller though.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I haven't read all the posts but I just make one point. Bill Maher and his guests last week pointed out last week the massive fraud involved in covid relief and that many rich corporations and criminals benefit hugely who shouldn't have. We are talking billions. Similar happened in Australia but to a lesser degree as we don't have antiquated computer systems that can't at least to some degree data match and check and cross reference applications. My point is if former students get a benefit rather than criminals and wealthy corporations for once that is not such a bad thing. In terms of standing on it's own merit I do think it might have been targetted a bit better to those on a lower income and I can understand those who have paid there debts feeling a bit peeved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.