Ace Nova

On 3/16/2024 at 5:37 AM, Len Cnut said:

Of course they’re gonna fuck it up, look how they squeaked past Porto…and it’s fuckin Porto.  Still, could be worse, we could be United 

Decided to check in and the first post I saw was yours.  Welcome back bro.  
 

Long time.  😃

And hello everyone 👋

19 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Setlist: It’s So Easy, Bad Obsession (with Chrissie Hynde on harmonica), Chinese Democracy, Slither, Welcome To The Jungle, Hard Skool, Reckless Life, Pretty Tied Up, Double Talkin’ Jive, Perhaps, Absurd, Rocket Queen, You Could Be Mine, Estranged, Live And Let Die, T.V. Eye, This I Love, Anything Goes, Civil War/(Voodoo Child), Band Introductions, Slash Solo/Sweet Child O’ Mine, November Rain, Patience, Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door, Nightrain, Paradise City

(HTGTH)

That’s a nice set list. 

On 2/22/2023 at 5:51 AM, UK_GNR said:

Anyone been to the venue before?

 

Is it worth such a premium price
Guns N' Roses
Ticket Prices: $450 | $370 | $250 | $170 | $100
Friday, September 15 | 7:00PM
Hard Rock Live
Tickets go on sale February 24 at 10:00AM

Yes.  Great venue.  I was there last time they played.   Club type atmosphere.  Not a bad seat in the house.  Very good acoustics, much more intimate atmosphere than a stadium, imo. 

I think just about everyone has had issues with taking offense in a situation when you know you're 100% right.  And when that happens, we tend to use words/phrases that can come across as offensive - and when that happens, it won't help the situation, no matter how right you are.

I'm not a fan of "sugar coating" things but in a heated situation, it's better to take the "higher road".  If you need to hold a few words in for a moment or two - it's better to do that than letting (what would have been a 5 minute conversation) turn into something much worse.  

On 12/12/2022 at 10:26 AM, SoulMonster said:

Religious folks tend to try to answer the problem of evil/suffering, by saying that it is collateral from god giving us free will. With free will, their argument goes, we are necessarily able to do hurtful things and the suffering comes from us making that decision. The only way to cease suffering is to remove free will, but the gift of free will is worth it.

That doesn't make sense. We only have "free will" to an extent. Our decisions on what to do are restricted by numerous things, from physical limitations to preferences and desires and drives. For instance, a good god could have removed the desire to have sex in children from pedophiles. A good god could have removed our propensity for violence. Etc, etc. We would still have the ability to do different things, just not a desire for it. The fact that I don't get aroused by children doesn't mean my free will is curbed, just that I don't have a desire for it.

If the argument is that a good couldn't have removed being sexually attracted to children from pedohiles without this meaning we don't have "free will" anymore, then my question is, does the fact that I don't want to molest kids mean that I have less "free will"? Or what about the fact that I don't want to jump off a cliff or cram crisps in my ears? Does this too mean I don't have "free will"?

I honestly can't believe how theists get away with such a silly attempt at aligning their idea with a "good god" with the fact that our world can by anything but good for many, many people. Furthermore, not all suffering is caused by the actions of other people. A good god could easily have removed many terrible diseases that affect people, including kids, as well as natural catastrophes. But no, apparently if there is a god, he wants us to suffer.

You raise valid points and ask the very same questions the majority of theists have asked at some point or another.

"Free Will" in almost every religion throughout history is essentially the reason we exist as we are.   In the Abrahamic Religions, when God first created mankind, mankind did not have "free will" so to speak.  Mankind was "innocent" in the sense that they did not understand or know the meaning of "good" and "evil".  Life to mankind (or Adam and Eve) was essentially a "paradise" on Earth.  They lived simply and under the guidance of God.  They followed his path and ways. 

So yes, in the beginning, it was indeed like you say.  Mankind did not have "desires" to do harmful things to each other.  They lived simple lives without prejudices, malice, discontent, etc.  "Good and Evil" did not exist to mankind as a concept until mankind decided to stray from God's ways. (Garden of Eden, tempted by an adversary, the fall).

Other religions speak of primitive forces/spirits such as Taoism (Ying & Yang).  Hinduism, Buddhism speak of balance and "Karma".  These concepts exist because mankind has "Free Will" but is likely "influenced" by these forces.

On a much simpler note, think about when you were a child.  When you were about to do something you shouldn't do, do you remember getting anxious?  Did you pause (at least mentally) before doing it?  Did you feel "guilty" after doing it?  Even now, as an adult, why do you refrain from doing certain things that would be considered "immoral" or "wrong"?   Sure, most of it is likely do to the way you were raised, society's standards, etc.  But is it all because of that or do you have an "inner Spirit/Consciousness, etc" that guides you in some instances?  

Sigmund Freud developed the psychological concepts/theories of the "Super Ego" "Ego" and "Id".  To put it simply: The Super Ego is your "good/moral" internal psychological "force".    The "Id" is your "instinctual" desires.  The Ego is essentially who you are and what comes forth from you, the decisions you make, etc after you mediate between the Super Ego and the Id.  

When you ask the question, 'Why do people have desires to do harmful things to each other"?  You are essentially asking, "Why do people have an "Id"?  Well, without the "Id" mankind (as we understand it) could not have survived, procreated, evolved, etc on this planet (as we know it). The Id is the animalistic "survival" instinct in mankind.  It drives mankind to eat, to procreate, to defend themselves, to work, etc.  It also drives the "lesser" qualities of mankind such as greed, violence, etc.   It is countered by the "Super Ego" which drives the "moral" standards of mankind, etc.  Even in science/psychology these two opposite "forces" exist.

Most religions speak of the same thing but in a spiritual sense.  In the Abrahamic religions, mankind did not need an "Id" or a "Super Ego" when mankind was first created because they lived under the guidance of God.  There was no need for a "survival instinct" or an "moral force".  God created mankind with his spirit and mankind lived accordingly until mankind was tempted to stray from God's ways.  Once mankind strayed, they developed the concepts of "Good" and "Evil".    (Garden of Eden, eating from the Tree of Knowledge).  God then explained to mankind that once mankind "Fell" that they would now be forced to live a life of labor, survival, pain, etc.  Prior to mankind "falling" these concepts/issues did not exist to mankind.  And from that point forward, mankind had "free will".  

For most spiritual people, "Free Will" is the choice between following God's ways or straying from God's ways.  To answer one of your questions, if one truly follows God's ways, one will not cause harm to another.  Even if/when tempted, a truly spiritual person should choose not to cause harm to another.  When someone harms another person it is because he/she strayed from God's ways and instead decided to follow their desires/temptation.

From a psychological perspective, when someone lives a moral life he/she has developed an Ego with a very strong Super Ego as a guiding force.   Many spiritual people refer to it as "living in the Spirit".

Almost every civilization dating back from the dawn of mankind speaks of these two "forces".  Science refers to it as "inner conscience" and in psychology, Freud developed his theory accordingly.  Ancient religions, Greek philosophy, etc all refer to essentially the same thing.  The only difference is that Spiritual people call the "Good Force" God and the "Bad Force" their adversary.  

So why would an "Omnipresent/Omnipotent" God allow this "opposite force" to exist?  It's the hardest concept to grasp yet can be the simplest at the same time. 

Could this "opposite force" be required for the creation of the universe?  The same way humans need an "id" to survive? 

From a scientific perspective, if you look at the Big Bang Theory, how violent were the primitive days of the universe?  Eventually, that "violent" universe developed into incredibly majestic galaxies, stars and planets.  Our solar system is in perfect order to sustain life.  (One in a million chance or more).   

From a scientific perspective (and philosophically); from violence/chaos came order and because of that order, life as we understand it, was created.  

So is it that far fetched (or out of line) that spiritual people call the "order" or the force that created the order, God?  And potentially the opposite force of chaos, disorder, etc their adversary? 

..

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Kill him, but make it look like suicide or an accident, or something like it. There is no other way to stop him. 

?

Ukraine seems to be doing a half decent job “stopping him”.  At the very least, I would hope it humbled him some. 

Although “killing evil dictators” sounds like a great idea on paper (I also thought it could have been a solution to this issue for a brief time) in reality it is not that simple.  What makes us any different than them if we do the same thing they do?   

The beauty behind Ukraine and the Ukrainian people is exactly what they have demonstrated to the world.  They have shown the world that no matter how big and strong the “bully” is, the “bully” can be stopped when people come together and defend their values, their homes, their lands etc 

20 minutes ago, jimisbatman said:

Know this is always a polirrising topic (sry 4 spelling), however do support harsh sentences for murder. In NZ, you can murder someone, get a life sentence, and get paroled after 8 years. One mentally ill man killed someone, got 6 1/2 years in institution, then released and did it again. 

 

That is one of the more troubling aspects of criminal justice system in many countries, including the U.S.  Unfortunately, many criminal justice systems are designed to punish the worst offenders vs rehabilitation.  And I think the worst offenders  deserve to be punished. 

That said, if some of these offenders do have the possibility of being paroled after a certain amount of time - wouldn't we want to make sure that these offenders are truly rehabilitated before releasing them to society?  I think one solution would be implementing mandatory, 24/7 , long term rehabilitation programs, for any severe offender who could eventually be let out of prison.   I believe some of the Nordic countries have implemented these programs with moderate success.  @SoulMonster could give us some insight there.  

2 hours ago, action said:

I can not imagine, sitting there as a judge who just had his breakfast and finished reading his newspaper, then for their next assignment condemn someone to death

 

2 hours ago, ssiscool said:

In that instance, who actually is to blame for the death sentance? The judge who orders them to death, the person who signs the death warrant giving them 30 days to live? The people who administer the drugs/flip the switch? It's not exactly clear cut. 

In the US, the jury decides whether or not a person is given the death penalty, not the judge.  The jury tells the judge their verdict (usually in writing) and then the judge states it to the defendant. 

As far as the rest of the technicalities go from the day the defendant is sentenced to the day of execution - most people along the process are simply following orders and doing their jobs.  Again, it's not something I would want to be a part of but I wouldn't judge someone for doing their jobs.  

Issues like capital punishment aren't resolved by pointing blame and ridiculing people that have a different opinion.  They are resolved over time and through education, information, therapy, etc. 

For example, let people have their say but also show them that what they seek to accomplish won't likely be accomplished by sentencing someone to death.  Most studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent and it doesn't necessarily bring the closure that victim's families seek.   The cost of executing someone is upwards of 9 times more expensive than making them spend the rest of their lives in jail.  And that's not even getting into the small chance that someone could be actually be innocent.  Then you can use some of the money saved by not using the death penalty towards therapy for the victim's family, compensation for them, etc.   

And at the end of the day, putting the worst offenders away on death row, where they are in solitary confinement upwards of 20+ hours a day, for the rest of their lives, is a most devastating punishment, imo.  

1 hour ago, janrichmond said:

The beaches are very important, have to be sand and safe for swimming for kids. Any you can recommend?

I've been mostly to the east coast beaches - along the Adriatic.  But anything south of Rimini is pretty nice and safe for swimming.  Most of them have "establishments" with umbrellas, restaurants on the beach and life guard stands.  Typically, the further south you go, the "bluer" the water.  

Rimini:

San Benedetto Del Tronto Beach:  

(About 2 hours south of Rimini)

Puglia region:

(About 4 hours south of San Benedetto)

Then there's the popular Almafi coast:

West coast near Naples.

And there's also Sardinia (I've never been there but I heard it's beautiful):

Other than the well known historic cities/sites - Italy has over 3,000 miles of beaches.   It rarely rains in Southern Italy during the months of July and August. Most of the popular beach towns (even the smaller ones) have hotels, hostels, apartments and even luxury camping sites that won't break the bank.   You'll eat well and if you get bored of the beaches, you can easily take a day trip to the mountains or a historic site. 

If I was on a jury and the death penalty was an option, I would be excluded from the jury since I wouldn't sentence someone to death.  Morally, religiously and spiritually, it's not for me to judge.   

At the same time, I wouldn't judge the family of a victim if they wanted the death penalty for someone who killed their family member.  That's a situation no one would ever want to be in and I couldn't imagine the amount of pain and suffering it would cause.  If they feel that the death penalty would give them justice and closure, who am I judge? (The only thing I could do is advise them to speak to other victim's families who went through something similar.  More often than not, they will find out that it may bring the appearance of  "justice" on the surface but it won't likely bring them "closure". )

That said, when it comes to whether or not it should be "legal" - it's not that simple, imo.    In the US, it's left up to the individual states to decide.  There are 27 states where the death penalty could be an option.  23 states that do not have it as an option. 

Even in some of the states that it is "legal" it's starting to become more of a "life sentence" than an actual "death penalty"  The death penalty is "legal" in California for example but California hasn't executed anyone in 16 years.  (And there is currently a state moratorium on executions).   Texas, on the other hand, still enforces capital punishment on a regular basis - but even Texas has slowed down some over the last several years.  The legalities that surround capital punishment in most states are overwhelmingly massive.  That's why it can take decades to execute an inmate on death row.  

I think eventually it will work itself out in the US.   Some states will vote it out, other states will vote to keep it in place.    But my guess is that even in the states where it remains in place, it will eventually become more of a "Death Row" sentence - meaning that the worst offenders will never get out.  

Hi folks!  I hope all is well with everyone!

I was watching a documentary called, "Train Wreck" on Netflix last night.  It was about the massive, 250,000 people festival called 'Woodstock '99".  Long story short, at certain points during certain acts, the 250k crowd starting getting wild and crazy, etc.

Limp Bizkit started playing and they got the 250k people in the crowd to go nuts.  Eventually they started to hurt people and break things, etc.  Fred Durst comes off stage and says, "It wasn't our fault".

Red Hot Chili Peppers closes out the festival on the last day and comes out on their encore after people were lighting bonfires, etc and plays Jimi Hendrix's, "Fire" song, etc  (After they were asked to calm the crowd down, etc).

So my friend starts saying, "It's not the band's fault,. they shouldn't be responsible for what the crowd does, etc"

And I'm like, "That's funny because everyone always villainized Axl for stopping shows, jumping into the crowd to stop violence, etc (To protect the fans)...and these guys could have done that....yet they didn't.  (And people ended up getting hurt, hospitalized, etc)

And most of these guys still have good reputations while Axl is still villainized for being "crazy" back in the day - yet - in reality -  Axl did the right thing back then - but was criticized because of it. 

Ironic. 

Hi folks!  I hope all is well with everyone!

I was watching a documentary called, "Train Wreck" on Netflix last night.  It was about the massive, 250,000 people festival called 'Woodstock '99" .  Long story short, at certain points during certain acts, the 250k crowd starting getting wild and crazy, etc.

Limp Bizkit started playing and they got the 250k people in the crowd to go nuts.  Eventually they started to hurt people and break things, etc.  Fred Durst comes off stage and says, "It wasn't our fault".

Red Hot Chili Peppers closes out the festival on the last day and comes out on their encore after people were lighting bonfires, etc and plays Jimi Hendrix's, "Fire" song, etc  (After they were asked to calm the crowd down, etc).

So my friend starts saying, "It's not the band's fault,. they shouldn't be responsible for what the crowd does, etc"

And I'm like, "That's funny because everyone always villainized Axl for stopping shows, jumping into the crowd to stop violence, etc (To protect the fans)...and these guys could have done that....yet they didn't." (And people ended up getting hurt, hospitalized, etc).

And most of these guys still have good reputations while Axl is still villainized for being "crazy" back in the day - yet - in reality -  Axl did the right thing back then - but was criticized because of it. 

Ironic. 

On 5/22/2022 at 3:54 AM, Rovim said:

pretty sure god doesn't exist so it's all good, we can do whatever we want. Shame about the eco system though.

Maybe.  And obviously we can do what we want.  While we are alive…anyway.

  Not so sure that goes afterwards.

Pretty sure God is fed up with the lot of you.  I mean...wouldn't you be?

"I gave you a perfectly sustainable eco system...and you all managed to fuck it all up within a hundred years."

Just sayin'.

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, imagine if Trump was in power, we could have had WWIII by now.

Possibly.  But not because of Ukraine.

That said, if Putin uses any sort of weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons...the second an atom of radiation enters NATO territory, it will be a very brief but devasting WWIII.

On 3/6/2022 at 6:08 PM, downzy said:

Incredible. 

Smart man.  

4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

When are you enlisting?

I expect all the big men who are heroicly advocating full scale war behind their keyboards aren't going to dare to just let others fight for them.

 

Who’s advocating all out war?  There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

3 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

So if I'm understanding this correctly. Big heads from Russia sat around the table and decided that they can invade eastern part of Ukraine because USA and EU won't confront them and they think they can survive sanctions for a few years?

Seems like it.  And they are attacking the entire country, apparently...not just the "Eastern part".

25 minutes ago, -Jaro- said:

Great thinking... Same as during late summer of 1939 when they said ket them have Poland if our butts are safe...

You really think he'll stop if he gets Ukraine?

He won't.  Bullies don't stop until they are confronted. 

10 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Where is that?