AccuTron

I guess it's a sign of progress that you never heard the phrase; perhaps it dropped out of use. Your description of midlife crisis mimics pretty well what I was thinking, so maybe it's the same intention, different wording. I watched the video, and the topic kicks in at about seven minutes. So to answer my own question: The toy memories are pebbles along the larger path. Pebbles of course are geologic results, so may contain content. But the midlife crisis or 2nd childhood concepts are bogus, made up things, coverups. The video covers lots more high quality ground, and I again find myself in the MGTOW Hall, hearing the endless echo of "sure glad I have the internet and my warm home and the heck with dating."

When did a dsayers post not help?? I should first note my title. I heard the phrase "second childhood" at various times growing up. It seemed to define an older man who was essentially just enjoying himself. Even young, I noted the air of smug dismissal that went with it. If I wanted to search the topic, I'd probably end up yawning and wish I'd watched an old episode of COMBAT! instead. If I ask here, I know I'll get interesting and fresh material. One thread would be to see how people have heard or reacted to that term in their lives. Is it a dismissive tool used by feminine (should've said female, nuttin' feminine about those) mouths (where I sometimes heard it) rather than honest appraisal of a man's behavior? And uhhh, maybe some female behavior might be involved in that? Romanticize or cling to the past...I have pondered the saying "With one foot in the future, and one foot in the past, you're pissing on the present." Cute, but gotta be careful. First thing, sort of philosophical math, is that if the past and future are to be minimized, then the present, which is infinitely small with past and future on either end, is pointless. The present is to become past, so we're to ignore it??? It is good to chuck old luggage. Yet we have so much entanglement, so do we need to search the luggage first? These forums are all about searching that luggage, then tossing the junky stuff. At one level, I can endlessly revisit those many psychological robberies. To an extent, I need to learn who the perps and pervs really were, and how the deeds were done, before I can move on further. Which I mostly have done. At a different level, I wish to discard the perps and simply recall the joyous (small) fractions of childhood as they could have been. These are opposites. I guess what's percolating in my mind is the question about how the phrase is used, second childhood. Is it a fabrication, possibly used as coverup?

"which I might call the bureaucratic-prison-entertainment complex" Interesting phrasing, adding entertainment; I'd not seen it before. It made my eyebrows go up. Yes, it's a continuum of control.

If your experience in China has saturated, and you are looking elsewhere, then what is it about the elsewhere that would be different? Among the many problems to select, the one I consider the worst in Western Civ. countries -- which to an extent I'd include S. Korea and Japan -- is the Social Justice Warrior Ego. Initiating in a primitive desire to do good, it is totally subsumed by personal ego and manipulative power brokers. There is a strong and corrosive connection among popular media and liberal politicians. China, as far as I know, doesn't have the same history of pampered feel-good youngsters, or media personalities who must bow to anything liberal, so maybe China isn't hostage to those particular structures. I realize that's broad brush and vague, but does it resonate somehow? Also, Obama is working with China's leadership (please, no tests on names!) about global warming, which is 100% fraud. I get what "democratic countries" politicians get out of the deal, which is gigantic vote tallies. But what would China possibly get from such nonsense? It has to be based upon fraud, but I don't know of any possible aspect of China where that would get traction. Are Chinese in general buying into this climate fraud? The Chinese news sources surely aren't kissing Democratic Party USA butt. Or are they?

I'm nearly Medicare and have very old memories. (I am still quite fit. I run the mile in ten seconds and hop right over single story buildings. Or did I dream that?) In recent months, I've noticed something. I've been in major mental damage healing for years now, constant progress. Lately, I got to a place where I recalled more vividly, just a flash memory now and then, of one or another toy. It's color, it's shape (design)...really, as a toy, it's goodness. I should have fully enjoyed the toy bounty during childhood, but the Sleaze Of Damocles always hung over my head, and full enjoyment was prevented. As I heal stuff, these toy memories are liberated, sort of pop to the surface, little burps. I see their pure value, without the external threats. I want to take back what was stolen from me. I want to recall them fondly. Does this have something to do with what we call living a second childhood?

That makes sense, yet a given effect depends upon some pre-existing wiring to show itself. What is that wiring? I agree that our civilized world has become an enormous cesspool of lies. DO NOT TRUST -- AND VERIFY has become my mantra. (Any graphic artist want to run with that?) As I ponder the source quote of my semi-pun, I'm reminded of another famous quote, by a possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." However, going back say 20-30,000 years, what was true then? Was it the same human devilish stuff, just vastly less of it, and only paleo-tech? Was it more difficult to fabricate lies back then, since most of life was based upon the natural world? Did con artists evoke spirits to evoke responses in victims? I'm trying to figure out what to paleo-humans would be someone else's data. Trying to con someone requires a type of data even if fabricated, about food or land or such. But everyone local at small tribal levels would share the same data. For a person to be subjected to an argument of new data would defy natural reality as known. Therefore it might be a ruse (perhaps to distract and steal food). So it became an advantage to distrust new data if not confirmed first hand. The next obvious point is about how many people refuse to simply confirm at that point. Maybe instead of confirmed, I should say discovered. A paleo discovery implies data ownership and thus status. Somebody else discovers, no status.

Okay, you got me thinking, and remembering more. Like, didn't she later date a married man on the sly? Yes, to probably all that you wrote. I was young, innocent, blind as hell. I should rephrase the statement. Not as having many male friends, but as having few female friends. I also recall that she was one of two female chain smokers I knew who stopped cold turkey. The second one stopped because I was dating her and told her that her breath smelled like ashtrays, tho' I probably put it more gently. Now I'm wondering if the first one, that woman I first mentioned, also quit for dating purposes, as opposed to health. I'll never know, or care, but it does put the uncertainty back into things...by pointing out the usual certainties.

In this world, anything is possible! (I'm afraid to search "baby tossing.") I suppose I visualized an overhand baby fastball into a pile of pillows (the crowd goes wild!). You could've meant short underhand tosses into a fresh laundry tub? (I sort of like that idea.)

A human infant is unique in having a very large head relative to body mass. Put a St. Bernard head on that cat, and see how many neck vertebrae survive the toss. However, once into toddler size, and stronger neck muscles, I see your point.

This one got my attention. On their own, Big Detroid (I kinda like the typo) made unsafe, unwieldy monsters, however fun. I forget how much was private (Ralph Nader for ex.), vs. State, but it took a lot of effort to get those seat belts and padded dashboards, and it was the State that made it happen. Consumers may choose, but not if nobody is offering choices. Consumers may now guide design decisions (skipping the details of how well informed those decisions are), but long ago, consumers had no power on this, since Big Detroid put up a solid wall of obstruction. (This was before foreign autos -- and choice -- carried much punch in the marketplace.) Fashion yes, safety no. Could seat belts and padded dashboards have evolved on their own in response to consumer demand? Perhaps, but it wasn't happening, and didn't seem like it would, until the State stepped in, in response to public outcry. Would Detroid have responded on it's own with a little more time (and lack of significant foreign competition)? I don't know. It didn't seem like their mindset. For the record, I cringe at the State of California's attitude on many regulations w/o full scientific honesty, and I'm not waving State pom-poms in general.

"I realized then that their push for originality was a façade and that they just wanted the students to not realized they're all just robots on a conveyor belt being injected with infected programs. " Bingo!

You just repeated part of The Big Lie. Take that fishhook out of your mouth. CO2 is a minor warming agent, and utterly lost against the vast complexity of atmospheric reality. Notice that you said greenhouse gases, plural. Kinda did a fast one there. ALL claims (ironically) of 100% agreement are lies, by people like Gore who is on his way to becoming a billionaire from this (and he's just one guy; do some math on that). Read my forum links. Do your own research, honestly, and don't believe ANYONE who claims it's real -- you will ALWAYS find a big money/power trail, plus some real dunderheads who call themselves scientists. Note that an original co-founder of Greenpeace (in addition to telling the FBI about Greenpeace now engaged in RICO racketeering violations) is telling Obama to climb off his hot air podium: INTERVIEW: Obama Should Just Drop His Climate Change Hysteria Says Greenpeace Founder Heck, Hizzhonor Stefan even has a video about how he no longer buys the line. (Somebody find the link; I'm tired...cough, wheeze.) By the way, we find that CO2 rises every interglacial period, resulting in massive ice sheets for the next glacial round. Hardly global warming! Link: Imgur And here I say it again: I've done about 75 hours intense research on this; I've read EVERY WORD including all reader comments on about (sic) 1,500 websites. (<< see the comma?) Some of those were research papers dozens of pages long. Be the very first person to acknowledge that might amount to something!!! (How many of you have gotten around to reading the Wegman Report www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf? Just look at the pictures, it's all you need; the text is way dense. Go to figure 4.4; McIntyre = good guy fraud detective who is maligned; Mann = evil data-doctoring creep.) This whole thing is falsified data, illegal math and physics, mind bogglingly stupid completely non-honest procedures, and a GIGANTIC money and power flow. So stop saying that 100% thing.

Cool video.

"I feel like he is giving me an ultimatum," "if you have a baby, I'll never speak to you again" To me, this screams "manipulative creep." ​We've gone into tons about religion in forum, yet one thing I find very valuable, regardless of even the existence of religious beliefs. That is to ask the question "Does this serve Satan?" The wording focuses the mind. Read those two lines of yours above, seems pretty clear to me. I recognize your emotional starvation, yet like food starvation, taking the only morsel offered, if it's poison, is not the correct choice. I'm not saying you have an obviously correct and easy choice*, but it's not to give in to coercion from a person who clearly is (somewhat cruelly, and very selfishly) arm-twisting you from a distance. What would he be like up close, and you can't get rid of him? A field may provide a delightful view from a distance, but up close it may have thistles and rats. (*Other than what you are doing right here, which is a very correct choice.) per st434u: "I suggest you talk to your husband directly about what's going on for you," Why not have your husband type directly to us here? An amazing, honest, free resource, and nobody, I mean nobody, gets by with any B.S. or it gets a group pounce.

I for one am eager to discover in which country you reside, and the jillions of personal observations you may have.

I just did a search of ABC and CNN, and the RICO Greepeace story isn't even mentioned, or buried deeply.

I don't think so. She wasn't selling me anything, just answering a comment. The many guys usually had their own girlfriends, within a larger group (while acknowledging a mix and match aspect to that). There are a lot of women who make me cringe, but she wasn't one of them.

Oops, somebody didn't do their reading in FDR forums about climate change fraud.

Would you clarify--what incident are you referring to?

Many years ago, college town social crowd, one decent woman told me, in response to a comment about having mostly male friends, that "women's worst enemies are other women." So there may be more than one reason for this.

"... I have so far found no incongruence between rational philosophy and the tenants of my faith" Okay, I'll bite. Let's start with that clunker called Noah's Ark. Believe in it? I notice the Old Testament didn't mention the +1,000,000 land insects needed to keep breeding pairs, plus extras because the elephants step on some. And where did that surplus water drain to? "Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion," Because it's a deceptive use of the word "opinion." "I believe in Santa Claus" may be an opinion, but that doesn't give it any footing whatsoever in fact. Start with Noah's Ark, go down the line with beliefs. "Opinion" becomes "convenient dismissal of coherent physical logic." That will get you flak. Yet flak is a great way to learn. Stick around, catch some flak. I think I have a few wing and rudder holes.

The Earth has been warming since about 1850, a natural variation low point. CO2 rises with each interglacial period, has been rising for ~18,000 years. Of course he finds warming, Of course he finds increasing CO2, Of course they rise together, So do other atmospheric gasses, Correlation does not imply causation. It means nothing, it's normal for Earth. Haven't viewed them yet, but thanks for providing the links.

Yeah, got my curiosity too. Who asked those questions about only having two kids? Have a nice day with sushi: Former Japan Official: “Unstoppable contamination of Pacific Ocean… is seriously menacing US West Coast” — “Fukushima now undeniably a global security issue… can’t be brought under control by single state” — Experts: Wave of radiation will be 10 times more than entire world’s nuclear tests combined "If the molten nuclear fuel rods are exposed...Japan’s landmass would become uninhabitable to a large extent…" ---- Valuable for going off topic a bit: The above link is THE site about Fukushima, and many of us have been following it daily since inception. To educate yourself about Fukushima, simply go to enenews.com, stay with daily posts, and peruse back-dated material for hours. It is the technical go-to source. All articles are brief but info dense and without spin. They are very good at pointing out TEPCO/gov't spin. They sometimes cover other issues, but it's primarily Fukushima. How many of you know of the ongoing massive Pacific North America sea life crashes? The obvious question is why do these disasters show up right after Fukushima plus time and distance? Sea stars of many species are obliterated by a sort of flesh eating disease. Many large sea animals are starving from possible food chain crash at the lower levels, which may indeed be an historically possible bad year for nutrient upwelling due to some (non AGW -- my emphatic addition) sea warming that's preventing good vertical circulation. Seemingly two different scenarios, and the starvation might just be one of Earth's unscheduled reminders, along with volcanos, meteor hits, and the like, of how nobody is really in charge. But the sea stars -- has something mutated? Here in this forum, I ask this largely to find out the level of awareness, which seems publicly abysmal. Also, a vital brief daily news check.

"Wears revealing or tight clothing while in public to attract attention." I want to say to many women (talking about a shopping mall on a warm weather day), "You dress like you gave a good time to strangers three times just on the way in from the parking lot, the only question being, were they five dollars each, or free? What are you thinking??????" They are not sexy in any way that I'd want to get near. "Doesn't like to philosophize or avoids talking about moral/ethical issues." Does this scream "Standard Operating Procedure" or what? In the general case, to try to engage a female (and this may be location/demographic skewed) in an honest rational conversation, about evidence, value, and results, basic comprehension, and having it last more than ten seconds, they don't quit and run away, perhaps physically, no smug looks, is a miracle. I've met college students who carried on perfectly decent conversation, but was only around that briefly. The disturbing data is a constant trickle. Which gives me a chance to praise my cute female hands-off housemate. Under a hundred pounds and lost in her clothes, she's easy to underestimate. She's quite naturally feminine, and guys note the bonus points on this, it's not a manipulative affectation. An understated honest hottie, which by itself isn't worth mentioning. She is also mentally a complete counterpoint to the above. Books which she has borrowed include (besides an Aristotle which I think is missing from a collection): Senior college level physics textbook; Clauswitz' On War; and she's reading The History Of The German General Staff for the second time. Knowing that such a female exists is like an oasis in a desert. I guess that if I roamed local streets and checked with people, many would have full bookshelves. Yet I'm also guessing that it would be strongly lefty, squishy feely, types of reading. Which have their value, but only with larger context for progression, and that context seems to be missing, which mires thinking. I base this upon a zillion small chance moments. Groupthink. "Consumes mainstream media news sources as her only news sources." I watch a friend's health corrode. Getting her to listen is like trying to wear down a brick with my thumb. With that vapid grin, pretending to listen, like someone might actually be trying to talk to her, to share the results of dozens or hundreds of hours research, standing on the shoulders of countless diligent others, like she might be humble enough to learn. It's those girl brains, afraid to admit mistake, afraid of breaking rank with those other girl brains and be ostracized, which would be fatal in the natural world, afraid to give up the worship of those who are in fact criminals, the curse of evolution that actually worked pretty well up until recent centuries. She has the internet, plenty of time, and lifts not a pinky to learn from it, indeed will shy from it like Truth is a looming vampire. Which in a way it is, it wants to suck the life out of Deceit. This is at cross purposes with her ego/groupthink. She watches mainstream news despite my admonitions. Her rear end grows considerably. (All this per endless internet, plus my own musings, and thanks to LOL feminism and Girl Writes What, as faces to put upon some future currency. But keep Hamilton.)

Ann Landers: "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out." I live in a Groovy City. Many people here are idiots. Rational honesty is scorned. No commercial aircraft fly directly overhead for fear of hitting the egos. (Yes, after birds, egos are the number two cause of engine flameouts.) So I follow the thread here. On the other hand... The words are so vague as to contain no actual pin-it-down meaning. Which means all possibilities are now available to the mind. (We interrupt here to note that the quality of said mind influences what happens next, as would the physical condition of a proposed hiker.) Give a hiker a map which says You Are Here, with four trail heads. But each trail is shown for only a few meters, then it's blank paper. The map is useless. All the hiker can expect is to wander. Yet many discoveries, notably in science, are found by serendipity. As land might have ravines which channel the search, the mind will quickly link concepts, even if by the thinnest means. This creates an instant mental map. Vague, poor quality, yet not quite blank. Like when dark shapes on Mars were seen with poor lenses, canals emerged from the imagination. The Mars canals were bogus, but the imagination might come up with something. Turbo daydreaming. Getting out for a mental leg stretch at minimum.