Peterkin

I don't think about it. No. I don't like standing in line; we rarely go to restaurants, but then it's for a special occasion: good food, good ambiance and good service. In the past decade, I've been in A McDonald's twice, several years apart, in need of a restroom and feel feel obliged to buy something in return. Between those visits, the portions diminished by about 25%. It's not particularly good, fast or cheap. Back in the 80's, we took the kids once in a while, or we might stop at either one of those or a Wendy's on long trips. Now, we stop at a grocery store instead and have a wholesome picnic. The story does nothing for me, btw.

Your are speaking of the lucky minority. If your biggest problem is boredom, you are the envy of three quarters of the world's population. Look around for something more meaningful to do than dosing yourself with little thrills.

Top? No. The top has been lopped off. There is no scale of comparison of shocks anymore. Screaming at heads of state, soliciting 400M jets for golf outings, shilling knock-off merchandise while in office, taking over sovereign countries, arresting judges.... from the trivial to the enormous, it all just sort of flows into one big electric storm.

How about white South African 'refugees', flown to the US at taxpayers' expense? Next, they be segregating sch... oh, wait, they're already doing that. No, they're not done until all the late-night comedians are in Alcatraz.

Wrong. That is not how people think - and I very much doubt you think that way yourself. For one thing, you don't know whether you will be safe, warm and fed tomorrow. So you have to ensure those things, which takes time and effort away from the pursuit of happiness. We will always want something specific, strive to accomplish something, work toward goals which requires that we do a lot of unpleasant things, like pass exams, prepare for interviews, work at a job we don't like, put off vacations and entertainments - make choices. That (the generic term for it is 'living') keeps people pretty busy. Wrong! You can survive in misery. Lots of people do. If you're determined to believe that everything we ever do is seek happiness, fine. If you think that's boring, fine. If you think life isn't worth living, fine. But why do you want to discuss a topic that has no resolution this side of death?

We try to achieve these things is because we believe they would make us happy. Quite often, achievement of a goal disappoints and causes even more discontent. Yes, of course. Happiness is not a single emotion, but a state of mind made up of many factors. For most animals, happiness consists of meeting their needs: physical well-being, freedom from fear and hunger, good weather, healthy offspring. The more intelligent animals have more facets to their notion of happiness, including sustained security, affection, leisure to play, intellectual challenge, the respect of their flock, troop or pack. Look at it like Maslow's pyramid : the more complex the animal's brain, the more complex its requirements for happiness. No. Because almost nobody is always happy. No matter how privileged or sheltered a person is, there will be some pain, loss, disappointment, grief and frustration in her life. When those things happen, he forgets all his other preoccupations and concentrates on how badly he feels. When it's relieved, that makes them happy - for a little while, until they starts desiring something else. In a lifetime, a human being can be happy and unhappy many times, doing many different things. Some lucky few are happy most of the the time, because they have the companionship, status, placement in the world and work that best suits them. They're never bored, because their environment and activity provides a variety of opportunities for satisfying experince. Sure. Some people sacrifice their happiness for another person's, for the pursuit of power or fame, for the favour of a human or supernatural idol or the triumph of a cause they deem more important than themselves. The results are conflict, waste, grief, destruction, delusion, cruelty, killing, martyrdom.... and sometimes the liberation of a people from their oppressors. Those are the prerequisites for for a state where you can begin to think about seeking happiness. The first step is to stop being miserable. The happiest people I know who sustain a state of happiness most reliably are gardeners and crafters. Better if better both. Better still if married. Best if they also have a pet.

Only, there was no argument of any kind. I could have made a case for gun control or the teaching of foreign literature in secondary school, without once referring to any mythical beings. However the OP question was about a mythical being and I answered it according to what I know of the subject.

Citation needed. If you believe atheists are less capable of reading comprehension than theists, on what evidence do you base that belief? The OP was a question about the main character in religious books. This one: [quote] Omar Khayyam The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.[/quote] That can be interpreted as God writing our lives directly onto the world, or the passage of time or as inescapable Fate... .... but not Rowan and Martin's FFoF award for acting in bad faith.

I don't follow. What meaning once existed and when was it lost? Citation? Well, here is one well known to our readership: ttps://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org Here's another: https://www.clearquran.com And this one : https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm Just for fun: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng Now, how in the world did you come to know that? What about the Moving Finger? A metaphor can't exist without context and most metaphors do not involve a god, that much is true, but I fail to see the relevance here. . Religious books do require deities, have gods a-plenty and are quite clear about what those gods demanded at some time. Any changes to the desires of the god of each religion have been recorded in further documents, such as rabbinical commentaries and papal encyclicals.

They probably feel the same way. Sensory overload. Don't worry about it: ignore them as they ignore you. (Except, of course, for common courtesy, like not bumping or pushing, making way for the handicapped and opening heavy doors for frail old ladies.) I hope that will work for you. 210, and it's all muscle, hardly any brain tissue.

According to religious books, the god tells his people exactly what he wants from them, right down to forms of worship, diet and dress. I haven't read much about any god wishing happiness for his people, other than the promise that, if you do enough of what the god wants, he will eventually grant you the happiness of his choice.

Are these people you know or strangers? If you know them, at least by sight, all you have to do is nod or smile or raise a hand in greeting. If they return the gesture, fine: you can all either keep going your own way or stop to chat. Let them choose which, unless you have a particular reason to engage them. They are almost certainly not thinking about you. Most people, most of the time, are too preoccupied with their own concerns to be thinking of random other people on the street. (The exception is people-watchers, like me, who think about almost everyone they encounter. I watch them, surmise things about their mood and circumstances and attitudes but they rarely notice. If they make eye contact, I smile or compliment their outfit or make a joke about the situation we happen to be sharing. It's not awkward: most people who are willing to look at you are disposed to be friendly. Those who want to avoid contact usually make their preference clear in their bearing and facial expression.) On the street of a city, it's perfectly all right to ignore everyone. That may be sad, but it's our urban reality: there is too much demand on our limited attention, too many others crowding our space and we often suffer sensory overload. In a village or small town, the pace tends to be slower and people more open to acknowledging one another. If people are just strolling, it's customary to say hello, wave or nod even at strangers. Also, it's a place where everyone should be relaxed, enjoying nature together. A Nod, wave or smile is sufficient to test whether the other people are interested in making contact. If not, you just keep going. There is no need to feel embarrassed; nothing is expected of you.

He means it, though. He wants to reopen Alcatraz as part of his 'return America to some imaginary past glory' agenda. This is a famous American landmark he figures everybody has heard of, which is a symbol of the good ol' days when law enforcement was serious and lots of convicted people were executed or sentenced to life in harsh prisons. He has no idea how it would work or how much it would cost or how inefficient would be to use (it's hard to to overestimate the extent of his ignorance): he wants to be seen making a dramatic gesture.

Well, he wanted futuristic. The Tesla Cybercar is to car as Doctor Who cyberman is to man.

I'm not sure the oligarchs are interested in any further investment in the electoral system. They've got a crazy old man who'll take the blame if things go pear-shaped. And they're none of them bound to the USA; they have ermine-lined bunkers already prepared inside a dozen mountains around the world. Meanwhile, they get everything they want. If there is no government left when he dies or they're ready to replace him, so what?

At his rate, nobody who isn't for him will have a vote by then.

Yes. Trump isn't the only Leader tearing his country to pieces, but he's sure setting a brisk pace.

Distance, I suppose, and less daily contact with the realities of the current American political scene. Plus, I guess the big T is not so cross with them as he is with us. I don't think any of his expansion ambitions will come to fruition; he may become king, but not emperor. (And I shudder at the thought of seeing him in those splendid new clothes!) But he'll do an awful lot of damage before it's over, and we'll need a good deal of resolve and co-operation to survive it. I hope we're getting a leader to ride these rapids. I don't care if he's politically savvy or charismatic or a great orator, just so he's calm and collected and stable enough. Gods know, the world could use an infusion of sanity!

Well, it's an existential threat.... Greenlanders are not widely divided on the issue either. No, the points are well made. I was aware of some, not of others. The blackface thing is a crock, and I never really believed that proportional representation is doable in this political climate, but the others certainly have merit. He did right to resign and probably should have done it sooner, for all our sakes. But it's done now. Maybe, but somebody has to take over, and the biggest clear and present danger is economic, and he's had some experience at advising government on economic threats. Otherwise, true, we don't know how he'll perform in politics. My guess: he's nowhere near as toxic as Polievre.

You have to wonder whether Harper's comment was more partisan than accurate. You have to wonder about the motivation of any comment Harper ever made on any subject. However, having worked in a Conservative administration gives Carney some valuable insight... well, hindsight, anyway, though he may still understand the regrettable Polievre better than I do. I just hope he's able to communicate well enough for the voters to understand. They can be pretty dense, voters.

Sorry; my quoter robot got confused. I don't think the Trumpist segment gives a toss about their effect on the world. Just as they don't care how many American lives DOGE is destroying: they celebrate the tough-guy stance - against Europe, against the media, against institutions and 'big government'. They do not converse about politics: they boo or cheer. And even when - not if - these tough-guy actions rebound on their own children, their own welfare, their own financial security, there will always be someone else to blame.

Yes, I think so. Maybe not to the point of petitioning for statehood, but more than most of us would approve of. His rhetoric has been alarmingly trumpist. I hope that puts even some of the far-right patriots off him. I don't know about the polling, but we're riled up enough to boycott US products and cancel vacations. I don't think so. Trudeau's faults are mostly silly mistakes; this guy looks anything but silly. He's a banker, not a 'real estate developer' or any other kind of salesman. He actually understands money, how it works, how it circulates. That's quite different from just trying to rake in as much of it as one can before one's scam is discovered. My concern is: does he understand anything else - like the existential crises we're sailing directly into? Can he handle climate change, microplastics, pandemics....? Better than the reprehensible Polievre, but how well? Maybe he's smart enough to collect very good advisors.

He always did, and neither that nor the crimes nor the bankruptcies, nor the failure to deal effectively with one situation after another, deterred his supporters. The absorption of Canada and Greenland will probably get pushed off the agenda, but Panama and Gaza are still in danger, because he'll find willing accomplices. But the country he's damaging most and fastest is his own.

Consider carefully: we're on his shopping list. Australia can only take so many and the Netherlands and Austria are pretty much full of American ex-pats. At some point, Americans have to stand up and reclaim their own country.

Yes. All of them. You have no clue.