BodyButter's Weird Thread About Stuff Nobody Else Is Interested In | Page 3 | Vital Football

BodyButter's Weird Thread About Stuff Nobody Else Is Interested In

I'm not big on podcasts - especially as my earphones are bust at the moment, but never heard Coxy approach the topic. You got a link as I'm sure others would appreciate it Col.
 
Cheers Col - I'm sure others will like and when I get new headphones, hopefully I'll remember they are here as do like Cox. Simple, sensible but normal.
 
Is anyone here into Eckhart Tolle? I just watched a video of someone else talking about Tolle and his thing of watching your own thoughts as an external observer, recognising that you are not your thoughts. Trying to get my head around that. I get the concept but it might take a while to get the practice of observing my own thoughts and not trying to make jokes about them.

 
I'll have a look at that later but I do get the concept, mainly from looking into cognitive behavioural therapy and meditation techniques.

I'm no good at meditation, but CBT is a wonderful thing and proves that thoughts, especially negative ones are just like pieces of junk swirling in your mind and should be disposed of.
 
Just as you thought it was relatively safe, we have this;

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/people-who-live-near-parks-should-be-taxed-more-165622405.html

Yes, a 'Thinktank' is now suggesting people who live near parks should be taxed more, together with the NHS being given a role in maintaining parks.

I thought the NHS had got enough on their collective plates......

I think this 'thinktank' needs to go for a long, quiet lay down in a darkened room.
 
Just as you thought it was relatively safe, we have this;

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/people-who-live-near-parks-should-be-taxed-more-165622405.html

Yes, a 'Thinktank' is now suggesting people who live near parks should be taxed more, together with the NHS being given a role in maintaining parks.

I thought the NHS had got enough on their collective plates......

I think this 'thinktank' needs to go for a long, quiet lay down in a darkened room.

And if you don't pay said tax, will you be barred from using them?

More importantly the NHS tie on, I'm sure everyone would be up for an afternoon of weeding and picking up dogshit after their 36hr straight shift.
 
Thinktanks tend to throw ideas into the public domain which are in line with what their donors would like to hear. They aren't fully formed or actionable ideas. They are vague ideas which sound good (to certain ears).

There is some logic to what they are saying. Parks are public facilities but we don't all have equal access to them. Those who live near parks benefit from said parks.
 
Is anyone here into Eckhart Tolle? I just watched a video of someone else talking about Tolle and his thing of watching your own thoughts as an external observer, recognising that you are not your thoughts. Trying to get my head around that. I get the concept but it might take a while to get the practice of observing my own thoughts and not trying to make jokes about them.



Yeah Eckhart Tolle I was led to listening to alot, after David passed. I also used to also listen to Fr Richard Rohr who I was also introduced too who helped me make sense of my Christian faith which is NOT mainstream.

If you don't want to read about Fr Richard though I hope you do as he is worth listening too, then skip to the end as there is a list of other non dual speakers.

He advocates Eckhart and actually wrote to him thanking him for his work in bringing the secular side of Christianity out.

The original Christian message that you find truths and truthes in is called mysticism.

When Henry 8th pulled the Reformation he basically f*ked up the original Christian message.

Fr Richard is a Franciscan Monk which is an order off the R.C. put your prejudices to one side a minute please

The Franciscan monks like all the orders off are not like main steam catholics in their beliefs. They live a life of little. Like the Dominicans and Jesuits of which this Pope is one.

Up until this Pope Fr Richard was always in trouble with Rome for his views. He married the first guy couple in the U.S is just one example of his liberalism

Fr Richard faith is in the pre Reformation times and is about the inner life, mysticism which the desert fathers and mystics followed.

His message is in brief all entwined which is what I believe and the Bible is mainly metaphor. Not meant to be read literally. I might do a post on this at some stage as he is really interesting which is a blessed relief and sits a long side my personal beliefs

He has enabled me to feel comfortable with my spiritual life

Anyway from Eckhart Tolle here is a list of other speakers on non duality. Some are very hard-core

Rupert Spira - gentle enough

These below are very blunt and hardcore. Most people push back against their message. However it's taking what you will, coming back to them. I've learnt how to incorporate them with all. It's not a microwave meal these below

Kenneth Maddon
Tony Parsons
Jim Newman
Tim Cliss
 
Just as you thought it was relatively safe, we have this;

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/people-who-live-near-parks-should-be-taxed-more-165622405.html

Yes, a 'Thinktank' is now suggesting people who live near parks should be taxed more, together with the NHS being given a role in maintaining parks.

I thought the NHS had got enough on their collective plates......

I think this 'thinktank' needs to go for a long, quiet lay down in a darkened room.
Yes mate agree.
That shit cropped up during the last election campaign, along side proposals to increase your council tax if you had a garden over a certain size, or a good view.
 
Here's a great one. The Germans saw the British as the aggressors in WW2. Britain declared war on Germany. Britain started bombing German cities (attempting to bomb German factories and missing). The Germans offered Britain peace in 1940 but Britain refused it so the Germans felt they had no choice to but force Britain's hand into the Battle of Britain after which (when Germany won) the British would have had to accept peace.

That's a different story from how I learned it in school.
 
You know the way most subjects at university have "the textbook", the one textbook which is pretty much the bible for that subject? I'm wondering what "the textbook" is for political science or even where I could find out what it is. I know @thefear studied political science but it was a little while ago.
 
You know the way most subjects at university have "the textbook", the one textbook which is pretty much the bible for that subject? I'm wondering what "the textbook" is for political science or even where I could find out what it is. I know @thefear studied political science but it was a little while ago.

Yeah, mine was Government and Politics, and was a really wide subject area (you chose what to specialise in) including USA and Russian political history, police and criminal justice, british central government, and so on. There wasn't a core book for it.
 
Alright, here's one that will probably not be warmly embraced. I'll say in advance that I'm not advocating for this. It's just a thought.

It was very clear to anyone paying attention from the start that the US could never hold Iraq and Afghanistan. They would be constantly under attack from all sides until they left. Stubborn as they are, they stayed for almost 20 years in Afghanistan without ever making any real progress. Afghans are still in much the same situation now as they were 20 years ago. I don't believe that the top brass in the US ever expected a different outcome.

So what could have perpetuated a different outcome? How could America have Americanised (Americanized?) Afghanistan? How could they create the Hawaii of the Stans?

One way would have been to confiscate land from the locals and give to to good old boys from middle America. Locked and loaded young men could go on a great adventure to Afghanistan and shoot their way through any obstacles.

There were 21m people in Afghanistan in 2001 when America invaded. If America had managed to relocate something close to that into Central Asia, the country would have been Americanised in no time.

Of course, it would have been a horrific thing to do to the already traumatised population of Afghanistan but would it be worse than living under the Taliban? There would have been huge losses of life on both sides but didn't that happen anyway? 20 years later, would Afghanistan be better off than it is now? I think it probably would. Afghanistan would have peace and security. It would have a democratically elected government and modern infrastructure.

There would be a new generation of American Afghans coming of age expecting democracy, fast food and Netflix.

Goepolitically, America would have an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of Asia. They would have a huge platform to put the squeeze on Russia, Iran and China.

It's all hypothetical and America is certainly not going back into Afghanistan, nor should they. They never should have invaded in the first place.
 
Alright, here's one that will probably not be warmly embraced. I'll say in advance that I'm not advocating for this. It's just a thought.

It was very clear to anyone paying attention from the start that the US could never hold Iraq and Afghanistan. They would be constantly under attack from all sides until they left. Stubborn as they are, they stayed for almost 20 years in Afghanistan without ever making any real progress. Afghans are still in much the same situation now as they were 20 years ago. I don't believe that the top brass in the US ever expected a different outcome.

So what could have perpetuated a different outcome? How could America have Americanised (Americanized?) Afghanistan? How could they create the Hawaii of the Stans?

One way would have been to confiscate land from the locals and give to to good old boys from middle America. Locked and loaded young men could go on a great adventure to Afghanistan and shoot their way through any obstacles.

There were 21m people in Afghanistan in 2001 when America invaded. If America had managed to relocate something close to that into Central Asia, the country would have been Americanised in no time.

Of course, it would have been a horrific thing to do to the already traumatised population of Afghanistan but would it be worse than living under the Taliban? There would have been huge losses of life on both sides but didn't that happen anyway? 20 years later, would Afghanistan be better off than it is now? I think it probably would. Afghanistan would have peace and security. It would have a democratically elected government and modern infrastructure.

There would be a new generation of American Afghans coming of age expecting democracy, fast food and Netflix.

Goepolitically, America would have an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of Asia. They would have a huge platform to put the squeeze on Russia, Iran and China.

It's all hypothetical and America is certainly not going back into Afghanistan, nor should they. They never should have invaded in the first place.
Have you been sat in the hot sun today mate?
 
It would be a fascinating experiment I’ll give you that, like the first series of Big Brother where it was actually an experiment. Who would be the biggest terrorists? The Taliban or American citizens with guns? Would the American citizens even be classified as terrorists if they're shooting down the Muslims? I’m sure it would be legal and defendable. Sounds a lot like the Middle East situation to me.
 
Last edited:
Alright, here's one that will probably not be warmly embraced. I'll say in advance that I'm not advocating for this. It's just a thought.

It was very clear to anyone paying attention from the start that the US could never hold Iraq and Afghanistan. They would be constantly under attack from all sides until they left. Stubborn as they are, they stayed for almost 20 years in Afghanistan without ever making any real progress. Afghans are still in much the same situation now as they were 20 years ago. I don't believe that the top brass in the US ever expected a different outcome.

So what could have perpetuated a different outcome? How could America have Americanised (Americanized?) Afghanistan? How could they create the Hawaii of the Stans?

One way would have been to confiscate land from the locals and give to to good old boys from middle America. Locked and loaded young men could go on a great adventure to Afghanistan and shoot their way through any obstacles.

There were 21m people in Afghanistan in 2001 when America invaded. If America had managed to relocate something close to that into Central Asia, the country would have been Americanised in no time.

Of course, it would have been a horrific thing to do to the already traumatised population of Afghanistan but would it be worse than living under the Taliban? There would have been huge losses of life on both sides but didn't that happen anyway? 20 years later, would Afghanistan be better off than it is now? I think it probably would. Afghanistan would have peace and security. It would have a democratically elected government and modern infrastructure.

There would be a new generation of American Afghans coming of age expecting democracy, fast food and Netflix.

Goepolitically, America would have an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of Asia. They would have a huge platform to put the squeeze on Russia, Iran and China.

It's all hypothetical and America is certainly not going back into Afghanistan, nor should they. They never should have invaded in the first place.
The only thing missing from this plan is "reeducation camps".