AllanN

Discussion is good but I guess he won't talk although does she talk to him...? Marriages take two and she's also part of the problem, as you perceive it. I would stay the hell out of it. Do you want to become third part of that problem, as you perceive it.. Do you to be remembered historically as the person who interfered. Not easy to stay out of it, but truly, truly you are only getting one side of the argument, even he's a serial killer, although thankfully he's only unemployed. Trying to help is natural but men have been killed trying break up fights between man and wife - both turn on the intervener, usually to help the women. If you believe marriage is sacred then you will stay out of it. They made a contract together and you weren't written in to that contract to be an arbiter in case of problems. There are thousands of reasons to intervene in someone else's marriage, as perceived by external eyes. Even to intervene in your marriage. Give me details I'm sure I could be critical of your marriage. Would you like that? Their marriage is a car wreck is what you're saying but it's their wreck, not yours. If she breaks away then that's different but marriage is until death do us part, not until someone else decides that one or other of the marriage partners isn't worthy. Yes it's heart-breaking, so welcome to the world.

People in Venezuela are starving and dying. Their propaganda machine (link below) says otherwise. All is good in Venezuela! They are targetting the elites! Lots of youth employment. Feminism is on the rise. Hospitals are caring for people. The article explains that Venezuela is a Socialist paradise, in their imaginations at least. https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/05/03/inenglish/1525357585_870007.html

Driving in the UK not a problem only the petrol price, around $11 a gallon, a horror that fully dawned on me filling the small mower can was about £6! But driving in Germany, a German friend complained about Romanians wandering all over their roads. Sounds like crash cam Russia from what he said. This is a spying thread... in the UK so many cameras even in our country town. After they master facial recognition GCHQ staff may have redundancies. Not a lot more for them to do anymore. Now I get your avatar, the Earls of Hardewicke. And I suppose my avatar says it all about me, woof, except I'm a little taller and with blue eyes, lol.

England, I wouldn't be anywhere else. Narrow streets, 99999999999 cars, narrow streets, but it's so civilized the drivers' excellent. And down the M1 @ 95mph often np because mostly everyone is going that speed. Maybe your relative your had some persuasion to kill himself...? Politics often involves persuasive methods not always evident in usual daily life.

I'll give you that, where else could life have come from... The method is another matter.

JLW Yep, algorithms are certainly a computer issue. Some algorithms get better, others get worse. I guess you'll have to avoid that leftist site or rejoin and go stealth mode, perhaps utilizing sophistry. RichardY Karma, well it's evolved from noun to adjective, something like tool and tool, for example: two tools in a synagogue doing repairs got their tools nicked. No slight on Jews, but thankfully most have a sense of humour. Herd instinct, lol, I hadn't thought of that. But yeah the peasants are so often revolting. Sadly they've either looped around today or they're just herding, wanting to burn today's equivalent of the witch. But tomorrows children in reverse (or even forward) will loop again back to sense and wonder how yesterday's peasants could have been so stupid. You ask how we would know whether the earth was flat or round if everyone said it was flat? Well you're taking us back a few thousand years BC with that question which has been answered again and again by those who used navigation, also confirmed practically by circumnavigation. The facts probably didn't matter to boat builders, sail makers or blacksmiths (or maybe MaybeNotColouredOrGenderedSmiths be preferable in this Age of New Stupidity) but people are curious and inquisitive. And people want to be right, good and knowledgeable which are frequently superseded by the want to be rich, so that the latter countermands the former. Countermands in the sense that someone can want both, but if there's a choice, money usually wins, and that's an obvious issue with many governments today: take the money or be right, which? Their choice is mainly money so that the thinking population are flabbergasted by the seeming stupidity of the government regarding many issues. But governments' seeming stupidity isn't so stupid when viewed from the money vs right perspective. Their corruption makes ideal sense. Although as you incline, none of it really matters. We're all dust before the wind; builders, smiths and untold others, forgotten are many who came before us. The only real importances as ever are: food, water, shelter and love. Navigating elsewhere for increased sustenance was the next question, which explained to the navigator that the world is a sphere.

I think you're going off on a tangent and not really helping J.LW Yeah well, that's me suggesting RichardY went off on a tangent, when I myself did exactly the same thing! Don't worry mate, karma will get me My simple answer should have been my first, and as I said: someone saw JLW's name on the forum and tried to guess the password associated with the name, so triggering the forum's password tries restriction, but also blocking JLW in the process until the forum's password tries counter reset. The world flat? Maybe such an inane question inspires the word loopy because most people go with the evidence of spheres and moves on. The inclination to loop is something like Communism's attempted reboots because "it hasn't been properly tried," bs. Stefan mentioned in a recent video that maybe the world won't make it, to the effect: too many people, too much entrenched in bs, but would restarting the world actually help, even with the knowledge gained, considering mankind's propensity to loop?

Travelling internationally I had involvement with detectives, on a friendly basis, and they knew I belonged to a semi-religious group (only probably 70 members and definitely not political) in the previous country. At the time they were not on the Internet and I did not discuss it on the Internet. Grand plan, well of course, but plans will vary according ongoing situational assessments. Although with cull the population etc, I think you're going off on a tangent and not really helping J.LW. Undoubtedly there have always been elements who suppose they have responsibility regarding the ongoing direction of the human race, some more extreme than others. J.L.W. Unless you're an important political player, a spy, or bundles of loose money are involved, I wouldn't seriously worry. edit: I mean unless you're involved in some political intrigue it's extremely doubtful that an agency would use it's resources simply to annoy you. The main task of agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ UK, as I understand it, is recording what people do, so that if the those agencies are suspicious they will later have a clear picture of who, what, habits. But as you say, there's a problem, so it's good you're aware of it, and being aware is good. Mostly likely it's some idiot messing around because they can. It doesn't hurt to run files scanners from time to time (e.g. MalwareBytes) to check you don't have nuisance files on your computer. Yet another edit! J.L.W. I remember now, same happened to me on another forum and I couldn't log on because: "Too many failed logon attempts." The reason I'm sure is because the forum listed the names of those logged on, someone had used my name and tried to guess my password. Thankfully the forum had a logon limit or else the "hacker" could have a used a password guesser program, but then limit inconveniences the legitimate user even using the correct password. The limit's obviously good and bad, but it gives the "hacker" time to give up and go away, just means you have to wait until the forum timer resets your password tries limitation.

And Lauren Southern was banned from the UK for daring to suggest Mohammed could be gay. Meanwhile in Toronto that government will similarly persecute, and try to prosecute people for "offending" Islam, but it's ok to blaspheme against Christianity, even the origins of religion with a company that is obviously Satanic and advocates pedophilia, not directly but indirectly. They could hardly state the fact openly. Upside down crosses, little children who've taken sweets from pedo bear and drinking the blood of sacrifice, the least of it. Whilst I have issues with all of today's religions, my least favourite is Satanism and its ilk. Words are symbols and their parallel are picture symbols - which advertisers well know and try incorporating those picture stories into their ads to get their product sold. Sweet Jesus icecream is not only a blatant anti Christian story message, it's also advocating corruption and contempt for life and decency. https://www.bitchute.com/video/C28dMMJTrBEP/ or instead, in better parts of the youtube ghetto:

Prove God doesn't exist, I don't think so. God is an idea, an ancient idea and with that idea the religions of the times clarified for ancient peoples the nature of the universe. And the ideas were accept for millenia until associate knowledge regarding God was forgotten and someone said, God? hey wait a minute wtf is that! Since then notables like Galileo, Darwin and many others have reassessed understandings about the nature of the universe, until here we are today questioning a massive idea but without the associate knowledge surrounding It - It being God. Proof or disproof of God cannot be given except without an understanding exceedingly similar to that of the olde, which can then be translated into today's equivalent of the new. The sciences have certainly succeeded towards that end more positively than most religions.

e Generally, I agree with you but you missed my point. My problem is TODAY'S religions, which are pathetic shadows of former brilliance. The originators of religions (I mean for example: Buddha, Mohammed, Christ, the prophets etc) were (for their times) dynamic people who had answers and were respected, even hated. Religion should easily trump the sciences, even Stefan, Jordan and others with facts and answers, but today's religions don't. Quibbling in their wreckage about which one is goodest is pointless. You say for example: humanity centred or supernaturally centred. What does that even mean today except that your opinion is something like a card hand where humanity beats supernatural? Religion is a deep study? No, it isn't. Perhaps to understand your Gnostic "depths" I am expected to read someone's opinion, which can only ever be second-hand at best. True religion is what inspires children's play, tigers to hunt even men into battle screaming for blood. Never was it tedious tomes droned endlessly to drowsy audiences. True religion is living, breathing, dynamic truth, reality and absolutes that cannot be refuted. It is love, hate and the profundity of life. How so? That is my understanding of the statements of the originators. You're proud of Gnosticism, you say, well frankly I'd be ashamed, along with the legions of other religions that have inflicted and deluded for centuries.

If you have a forum program (like FDR where we are, for example) you can pretty much do what you want, edit posts, delete them and that's what's happening to Ashton Birdie on Twitter: Twitter and Facebook have obviously proved themselves amoral. Wordpress, who knows, it's still a program and will respond to its owner. Of course "spooks" are watching, or recording, it's what they do. From personal experience, if they want us they've got us. The Internet has convenient ways of listing us, which is wandering off your question, and it seems you're suffering the effect of people fiddling with your posts. But hey, suppression and their bs editing with never work, a lesson the commies eventually learned after their world got broken.

I have to agree with Osmotic, and there will be reasons for and against your parent's interaction, which to you will probably be forever unknown, and it resulted in you. There's a parallel with two people fighting - again with reasons for and against, but both are warriors. Similarly your parents are parents regardless of what they may have thought. That seems pretty obvious to me which leads me to wonder, what are you, "J" asking exactly? Well, I'll presume. Personally I've had a few one nighters in various countries and casually in retrospect I have wondered about the results which I didn't consider at the time. I also presume your mother had some affection for the man because it appears that she doesn't resent you. Mind you, not all women think the same, but even so, for most, having a child is exceedingly deep and the depth of experience shouldn't be underestimated. I saying that trying to nail the thing down to should or shouldn'ts, in my opinion, is trivializing the matter and the vastness of its scope, which I'm sure you don't intend. The power of women's love, men yearn for, and women's bodies are only really lures which instinctively most of them they paint up prettily, whilst men try to be manly. You were a result of your father's yearning, and hers, for what she lacked at the time, whatever that was. Motherly she seems to be, although still I'm presuming. The interaction of your parents was a bringing together of two primordial yearnings which to your mother was priceless because the result was you, whom it seems she treasures. You are perhaps for your mother a sparkling moment captured in time, something like a diamond, but you live and breath and feel, even like your father, somewhere faraway. You wanted input but I dared to presume re your true question, apologies. Maybe you'll get more pragmatic replies which are probably what you'd prefer.

The above I agree with to an extent, but I wouldn't use the word luck, which is belief (luck, the word used by the initial thread starter), chance would be my preferred word, but yeah, I'm probably being pedantic. Although from a feminist pov both would be wrong because they're men, so in the case of Jane and Mary above, it would obviously be John's fault. Their religion could also be a factor but that may involve intent, and the thread starter specified that there was no intent in both cases. Both drivers were negligent because the task of driving, it is agreed, involves control of the vehicle at all times, so texting infers negligence. Both drivers were therefore negligent. Beyond that, negligence often has consequences. The consequences of one driver's negligence resulted in catastrophe, and the other party's negligence did not. Both drivers tempted catastrophe but only one driver caused it by a chance encounter, exacerbated by negligence. The driver who hit the ped is more guilty, (as the thread starter asked) because the consequences of negligence can be many and varied. The same driver could instead have hit a ped rapist chasing a woman and so saved her. Would the question then have been: were the two drivers heroes for saving the women? No, of course not. Both were negligent, but the driver who saved the woman was lucky.

Apologies, my criticism that you should think more deeply about your questions wasn't intended as a negative. The process of interaction involves correction and self-correction so I was attempting to be helpful because I wasn't sure what you meant. Even your latest statement: the world is getting more moral I don't get. The statement could mean many things. I'm not going to offer you suggestions about what you may probably mean, having been castigated by your obvious irritation with my attempts at being helpful, which I shall clarify again below. And, I'm still not sure how you reason that nudity harms people, except that it will certainly get people arrested, which is what you seem to be saying. Nudity's illegal, but that still doesn't make it immoral. I was questioning your initial statement: I believe that obliging or forcing people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, including forcing various apparel, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral. You do understand that your statement infers that nudists are being put upon immorally? Your statement above I had sought to clarify in my initial post, suggesting that perhaps you're referring to Islam. You haven't replied to my questions or suppositions so I can only conclude that you don't want your statements questioned. Well, fine, I'll leave it be, apologies again for upsetting you.

Gotta love Sye Ten

Mohammed was a man of his times. Him marrying a prepubescent child is a common misconception because the girl was about 18, well over the age of consent in relative history. The Bukhari's distortions of the Koran and subsequent writings, as I said, for the most part are tantamount to blasphemy. Christianity also has its stupid distortions, for example, the story of Sodom. Among the men of Sodom, there may have been homosexuals but the men of Sodom raped just about anything, because rape was the ultimate insult. Transpiring from that into Christianity however, it was interpreted that anyone's who's a homo is an abomination to Christianity, a BS conclusion. Onan's seed, similar deal, masturbation is evil, but again a totally BS interpretation. I have no problems with the Bible, the Koran and other holy books but utterly stupid interpretations have screwed religions to the point where credible thinkers treat religions as retarded. I'm not angry with them or you, although I think your appreciation of the Koran and Mohammed is only populist knowledge, although honestly, what you say is totally understandable. All I'm suggesting is you aim your contempt where it's deserved, not at the originators, but at the halfwits who dare hold themselves up as representatives of those holy works, and even of God. Not the originators because for their times they were extremely advanced, inspirational and dynamic. Instead, what we have today is mostly boring and delusional, the haunt of charlatans, but mostly halfwits. A true religion is way beyond science, and facts are no mystery to it. A true religion escalates intelligence and understanding more than any drug. Current religions will attest that's what they do, but mostly it's charlatan and halfwits in rooms charged with emotion singing songs about being chosen and reciting misconceptions from books whose true meanings are mostly forgotten. Although in so saying, I haven't met them all and I fully realize that many people do their best with their faith which is admirable. The nearest I currently know to true religion is Stefan, Jordan and people like them who are truth-tellers, as best they can be. And that's what religion always was, truth-tellers. People who make real sense. No, not religions as we know them, but the originators of old made sense back then, and they weren't welcomed either.

You say it's irrefutable that no one likes to be forced to do anything? Force even coercion for want of deeper explanations are how the operational world of mankind functions. Always, always when someone is involved in a system, force is mandatory to keep the system running, even for the CEO. The CEO is forced to attend that which CEOs' attend otherwise the system may fail. The only time there's no perceived force is when hippy's are sitting around smoking dope. There are many types of force. re your 2nd point: Nudists are forced to wear clothes without just cause so your statement implies that most of the world is immoral. Perhaps you should think more deeply about the questions you pose. If you're getting at Islam without mentioning it specifically, well, the Koran doesn't directly demand that women cover themselves up. From memory the whole thing arose because someone was having problems with bare breasted women during Mohammed's time, and he suggested they cover themselves up, as you would if someone had a problem. But it was only suggested, that I do recall. The problem with Islam is the Bukhari (an interpretation of the Koran written several hundred years after Mohammed by a bunch of vicious warlords, and then there's endless strange add-ons.). The Bukhari also advocates Sharia Law. The Bukhari essentially represents a schism; a split away, for example like the Mormons or JWs from Christianity. I have respect for the Koran and Mohammed but in my opinion the majority of Islam today is a sorry wreckage and the fault is the Bukhari's blasphemous interpretations. So your statement immoral ideology kind of leaves me cold. It's an all-pervading statement that doesn't really say anything except that it's bad, well fine, but that's really only an opinion, which of course you're welcome to have.

edit, correction: "Never ask a woman what she wants, why, because half the time she doesn't know." quote from my wife. That means that their wants are largely adaptable according to the prevailing logic of whatever system in which they are enmeshed, or are considering becoming enmeshed. Personally I've come to categorize women into three divisions: ladies, woman and whores, which isn't strictly categorical but there's mixtures of all in each, although that doesn't mean that there isn't, absolute lady; absolute woman; absolute whore. I'm not stating that whore is bad, only the nature of her proclivity. Neither am I stating that lady is the optimal disposition for females, but again, only that they are categories. Which is which, lady, woman or whore is a big problem for men, if men have even realized such categories exist. The categories are also a problem for many females who without realizing flit from type to type according whim, weather, or the logic of the system in which they are enmeshed. The logic of Stormy Daniels is probably a good example of the confusion that some females suffer: Daniels shouted to the entire world from the highest mountain about her supposed whoring with Trump, which could ruin her reputation. Daniels illogical statement confirms her confusion about her categorical position. Trump actually enhanced her whorish reputation, but Daniels instead supposed herself a lady with a corresponding reputation to protect. I suspect Daniels' illogical stance was inclined by the prevailing logic of the system in which she is enmeshed, and probably, money influenced that logic. During the US Civil War a town occupied by the north had a problem with the southern ladies flashing themselves at the north's soldiers, a grave insult. The northern general in charge of that town put up a notice stating that any lady flashing herself would be considered a whore and arrested as such (the language used at the time was more arcane). The sign immediately stopped the ladies flashing themselves at soldiers. That example makes more evident perhaps, the mental divide, then and now, between ladies and whores. Whores in those times were ten-a-penny. Succinctly, the common soldiers of that time were offended by ladies flashing their private parts. Therefore the categorical difference between lady and whore in those times was common knowledge. Females are females, well of course not. Below the three categories are proverbial mountains of difference, so defining precisely what females want is impossible. A man therefore, or even females so inclined, should know what he wants himself. His knowing will attract a female to become enmeshed in his system, and one can only pray he's deduced for himself the right female. I mean, don't mewl and dither around females who only have half a clue what they want. Be a man and reach for the sky. Sure, being a man was never easy, it's loneliness, blood and war, but it always was. Whores in their many forms sustain that suffering until the glory of a woman appears with her succour of love and warmth. Rarer are ladies but they too exist. So men, grab your balls and get marching.

I'd always thought the sciences were: kind of smug, self-indulgent, intellectual weaklings controlling the discourse, such that in debate I've often enjoyed defending religions tooth and nail from the sciences, even if I disagreed with the religions' stances. I realize I'm generalizing using: the sciences. Now there's Islam against which few dare speak, certainly here in Europe. The sciences too seem to have become just another political wing, alas Evolution overlooked, and the driving factor has always been money. You say that stupid culture can only create stupid science, but then the sciences generally, even prior to the problems you elucidate, offered only arrogant dismissiveness, and frequently ad hominem approaches to anyone without muh credentials and to anything not considered, ye scientific method. Therefore perhaps you are out-of-touch with recent progressions of the scientific attitude? I can draw no other conclusion. Who could have foreseen Richard Dawkins inclining to the defence of Christianity against something worse, as he said in a video. Certainly the sciences didn't forsee it, but the religions, if nothing else had their faith. I'm not here to gloat. In my opinion religions today have so many faults they could almost be abolished, but currently there's nothing to replace their yearnings. Towards that end, the sciences have failed again. Iphones, bulldozers and skyrockets, a fabulous benefaction when probably 99% of people yearn for things like green pastures and innocence, well, for Eden. Can the sciences be saved? We shall see.

IC no binary in that statement.

Not so much retrospective, although I definitely agree with your observations. I mean, besides Pettibone, Southern and Sellner's plight, the thought police are in action right now. In the UK, certain divisions of the Police state categorically on Twitter: "we are watching you." They don't mean they're watching thieves, rapists, those planning massacres or child molesters, they mean they are watching ordinary people who dare write thoughts, which in their opinion are "offensive." I say, certain divisions, not all, notable is the Met Police which have a division of police watching Twitter posts. Meanwhile figures show violent crime in London has risen dramatically. But I mean, really, FFS, their money masters in the Saud don't realize that the UK public aren't retarded, much as they underestimated the US public who voted for the only honest man around, Trump. Yet still the media smears itself with lie after lie. Dumb and dumber they still don't get it, even as the Soviets didn't get it. Facts and truth cannot be suppressed. But yeah, SnapSlav agreed, it's swings and roundabouts as you incline and for the exposés of tomorrow I can't wait

This could be helpful re your "spiritual experience." https://www.cardozoacademy.org/think_tank_blog/makes-spiritual-experience/