Lol. I had a similar thought. Different strokes for different folks- but I have never met a woman whom when dating would be disgusted by an erection... and if I did... that discovery would most likely be the end of that relationship.

Lol. I had a similar thought. Different strokes for different folks- but I have never met a woman whom when dating would be disgusted by an erection... and if I did... that discovery would most likely be the end of that relationship.

That said- the concept of “perfection in imperfection” has existed throughout history in cultures around the world. The repair of cracked earthenware with metals like gold for example- Japan has an entire historical art category for this. So it is entirely possible, and due to lack of surviving evidence one is free to plausibly believe- that the potter either didn’t care about the Mark or even thought it was as adorable or interesting as we might today. I am merely pointing out that it is inaccurate to say they wouldn’t fire a “ruined pot.” They may well have so long as they believed it could be used or sold in some way and it was a matter of practicality to complete it.

There ARE people who don’t poop. An adult who has never pooped is theoretically possible but would be very rare. There are numerous conditions which can effect a baby pooping- from being born without formed nerve cells in the digestive tract (such as Hirschsprung's disease) to having perforated bowels at birth and requiring colostomy, and more. While many of these are treatable or reversible- that’s not always the case. And it IS possible for a baby to be born with a condition preventing pooping, and to receive a lifelong stoma bag, and thusly never “poop” even though they do produce waste. But if you’ve ever met a newborn baby- you’ve probably met a person who hasn’t pooped. So we can dispel this one pretty easily.

So one can be rich but not be powerful. One can be powerful but not be rich. Power isn’t so simple as this guy makes it. Rosi makes some good points below so I’m not going to explore those. I’m just going to say that in general- it isn’t so much that people only care about your power- power is something that often is had because people care about you. If people don’t care about you, you’ve lost one of the main ways to influence people in our society asides from force or coercion.

For years.... who is going to likely be “wealthier” or have more economic power: the guy with 5 million dollars or the guy with 50 cases of bottled water? All paper money is at that point is tinder to start fires. Without anywhere to spend it, without a government backing it- it is not much more valuable than twigs and pine needles.

But power has more than one definition. Power can also be your ability to influence people. And well... that’s subjective. For example- a person might do you a favor they wouldn’t do someone else because you have always been kind to them. Because you were kind- you can influence them. If you hadn’t been kind, they won’t do what you ask. So in this case- your “power” or influence over this person COMES from being kind. They very much DO care if you are kind. In face in general- being able to influence people often comes down to all manner of little things. Now- money can give you power- you can buy things and even pay people to do what you want. Perhaps bribe your way out of trouble? Wow. So powerful right? Say you pay someone to murder a person and cover it up with your money. But..... what happens if you encounter an officer of the law who doesn’t want your money? How powerful are you now? So money isn’t inherently power. On a desert island stranded with seemingly no hope to escape

... scientists don’t do so great outside their speciality. I mean- you probably wouldn’t want the worlds greatest brain surgeon performing a face lift or boob job on you if you had some well regarded and experiences cosmetic surgeons to choose from- and you also likely wouldn’t want the worlds leading surgeon in calf implants performing brain surgery on you if there were some well regarded brain surgeons to choose. You don’t want your dentist to remove your appendix or your pediatrist to do your dental implants non general. So I mean... however one feels about ghosts- we cannot scientifically say they do not exist-!but we can say we do not have enough evidence to consider the theory at this time.

It’s also worth mentioning that they just might not be very good at it- or even basically qualified to study ghosts. Even with a budget of billions of dollars and the best facilities in the world- if you took a random fast food restaurant crew or the cast of an average sitcom and gave them years to use those things to discover a new treatment for HIV.... well... the odds are they wouldn’t be successful because they probably aren’t the right people for that job. So a very simple explanation to why they haven’t found any ghosts could be that these guys just aren’t good at it. Now- even if you took the worlds leading marine biologists and threw money and support at them, their odds of making a breakthrough in astrophysics is pretty slim. Even amongst trained scientists, while there are certain skills and knowledge that cross disciplines (and sometimes a scientist from outside a field has perspective and information that can lead to breakthroughs beyond their field) generally even...

... in the past, because in the interim better, more precise equipment was discovered. What’s more- sometimes we have the technology but we don’t have the means. For example- the large hadron collider or some of the massive arrays and probes used for astrophysics and other observations of the cosmos- these tend to be massive and expensive structures which we don’t have many of. Even smaller lab equipment can be rare or so in demand that getting time at all is difficult to impossible and you must generally share with others and try to combine projects to maximize the use of the equipment or facilities. So the logic that they haven’t found any ghosts in what is a relatively short time on the scale of scientific research- isn’t proof there are no ghosts.

Lol. I agree it is pretty funny. I mean, even looking for ghosts from centuries ago or longer and speaking modern English or Even the modern version of their native language is kinda funny. That said, in fairness- it’s also funny that we tend to equate ghosts to ancient or old. I mean- who’s to say the ghosts haunting the castle couldn’t be some college kid who tripped on the stairs in 2015? And I mean- a pretty large number of Germans and a decent number of French speak English anyway- English has been a pretty common language in non English European countries since at least 50 years- especially in areas with tourist type attractions and in urban or metropolitan areas. So your odds of finding a German ghost that speaks english are probably not too much worse than your odds of walking up to a random German and having them speak some English. Obviously this doesn’t really apply to ghosts centuries old or more- but as stated- ghosts that old might not understand modern languages anyway.

So boo hoo. Stock prices and bonuses and profit statements aren’t made by how much you say you hate something. You’ll hate it with a passion and still give them money- and that’s what they are after. How many movies get panned by critics and audiences but make huge returns? Does the studio give a crap that you and everyone else hate Die Hard 7: “Please let it Die Already” if you all buy tickets and pay to stream it and give them money? Are the Transformers films beloved cinema that are generally highly regarded? They kept making them. They’ll keep making them until they think the well is dry and needs to recharge. Then they’ll sell reboots to the next generation off the nostalgia of these films the same way they sold us the M. Bay reboots off the nostalgia of the classics. And on it will go so long as we sell out.

If a company is being likable, if they are seeming ethical- this is almost always marketing. It’s a way for a company to gain market share in saturated business spaces, a way for upstart new comers to break through and compete against giants who they couldn’t go toe to toe throwing money around to take the market, so they use grass roots and word of mouth and some version of “disrupting the paradigm” to gain customers and get big... and at a certain point they throw the ethics away or become a villain regardless. Napster, YouTube, Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, blah blah. Herpes at one point. Up and comers with high values mission statements who got big enough to only have to hold on to the narrowest pretense of not being willing to sell your organs if it was legal.

The consumer is a whore, but it isn’t all their fault. Most of the time you only have one choice, or your choices are just bad and worse. I mean- Microsoft was the devil of the early 2000’s- their DRM -and planned obsolescence and their bid for total control of the market. Then apple cake out and now many of the same people who joined in to complain about Microsoft buy Microsoft products to avoid apple. And most people complaining still have apple and Microsoft products they use regularly anyway.

How long have big oil and gas companies been villains? That didn’t really stop people from buying their products- the biggest hits to their business came when people could t afford their products or found ways to not pay them directly. Amazon- the place where people pee in bottles and the internet goes into hysterics when a guy has a heart attack Un noticed on duty.... order anything from them lately? Stream them lately? Walmart was the big bad guy before Amazon. Muscling suppliers for cheaper products and cutting wages and using any trick they could to hire workers for literally below standard minimum wage... while driving small businesses into bankruptcy. Walmart is still doing fine. Some people went to Costco or whatever... because that’s so much better for small businesses and living wages and supplier ethics...

For starters... a 5 foot to 5 foot 7 male in modern times weighs ideally between 97-160 or so pounds. Being that Jesus generally is said to have lived a simple life... it’s possible he was heavy set or jacked- but... it would be more realistic to believe that like most people of the time, he probably would have been on the light side- especially by today’s standards. it’s also said by theologians that Jesus weighed... nothing. That Jesus had no physical mass. But it’s all up in the air really.

Generally, skeletal remains of adult males from the time average about 5’5”. Scholars tend to think Jesus was between 5 even to about 5’7” or so. The Bible doesn’t say how tall Jesus was, but it doesn’t really imply he was abnormally tall or anything of the like. And well... the Bible really doesn’t describe Jesus. This could be intentional or unintentional- but the New Testament puts more emphasis on what Jesus said and did than what he looked like. As to what Jesus weighed....

So ultimately, while Recieving a prize or recognition (or meeting a challenge of honor etc) for winning in an organized contest wherein the sponsor or public may have determination over the distribution of these things- generally relies upon recognition of victory and thus meeting the victory conditions set in the rules; I would say that winning is not dependent upon rules beyond if one wishes to count ones personal goals as a “rule,” which seems pointless anyway as that’s subjective and can change on a whim. It is also the case that save where contractual language allows discretionary rulings, or where the rules forbid that which is not explicitly allowed in the rules, anything not prohibited by the rules is theoretically allowed within the rules, unless and until the rules are amended to prohibit future abuse.

But since winning can be intangible- one can be simply endeavoring to have fun, or one might only care about their own recognition of a victory and not care of others acknowledge it- one can fail to meet the victory conditions set forth and still consider themselves a winner.

Rules are the conditions one must meet through social contract or threat of force or other compulsion. For example- there is a local dance competition. You want to win the first place trophy. You COULD kill all the judges and all the other contestants and the audience, or break in- and leave with the trophy. So long as no one stops you from taking the trophy, you get the trophy. Now, both the hypotheticals I mention there would likely result in you being arrested or killed. This would be an example of an ultimate reliance on force to validate the rules of victory. If you stole or otherwise acquired the trophy outside the rules but without committing a crime- others would likely refuse to recognize your win- this would be enforcing the rules through social contract. The former requires sufficient force to stop you or make you not want to deal with it, and the latter requires that you care wether others recognize your win.

I think I am going to agree with darkness_within on this one. “Winning” is a broad word. In the ultimate sense- to “win” is merely to either best someone in a contest, etc; or to acquire something you want through contest, endeavor, quest, etc. One can win at something where the only rules are those rules imposed by physics and nature- for example, if you and another hunter in the wilds go after the same prey- if your goal is to acquire the meat and or pelt of the animal- almost any scenario in which you do so would be “winning.” You could trap the animal, catch it, chase it, use projectile or thrown weapons, or even kill the other hunter or trick them into giving up the hunt.