I don't think my statement rules out philosophizing. Should not the philosopher also seize the day? Our philosopher doesn't know how long he has to record his insights, so, shouldn't he get on with it?

BTW, I didn't say life was grand, I said it was good. Don't you think life is good?

Quantifying pleasure and pain is a rhetorical device. There can certainly be "more pain" and "less pain" -- I've experienced more pain and less pain. Likewise, there can be "more pleasure" and "less pleasure". Some nights in the Garden of Earthly Delights have been more pleasurable, and some nights have been less pleasurable.

So yes, we can not treat them mathematically. We can't quantify the pleasure of a terrific orgasm and say it is 37% more pleasurable than a run-of-the-mill orgasm, or that a fantastic orgasm arithmetically balances out the pain of a dental cleaning by the hygienist from hell. If we could, I'd bet that the hygienist from hell would beat the best orgasm all hollow. (I ran into that hygienist 3 years ago and haven't forgotten the experience.)

but today only marxists support this theory, because in this theory is grounded the exploitation of capitalism — filipeffv

And god forbid that anybody should call capitalism "exploitative" when every school boy knows that capitalism is merely the maximization of opportunity... per certain august philosophers here.

Political Economy — filipeffv

I prefer this term. What a few billion individuals choose to do in relationship to the market place can hardly be anything but political.

Do you think the individual always acts to maximize benefit? Maybe a few people do, but most people trade off very short term pleasures for long term benefits--I confess as much myself. That individuals know how to maximize benefit a hundred times a day seems to be a doubtful proposition at best.

It would appear that tycoons and Federal Reserve bankers are just slightly better than the man-on-the-street at predicting the future. Crashes are rarely foreseen until they smash into the headlines.

And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep? — Michael Ossipoff

Strictly speaking, of course it won't be... — Michael Ossipoff

anything like sleeping, because one presumably will never dream or wake up. Sleep is a euphemism for death, which has no ending.

Life just stops, and that's it. Nothing more. The prospect of death is a tremendous incentive to enjoy life while it lasts. Carpe diem.

You paint a dismal picture. — TheMadFool

Oh, sorry about that. Didn't mean to rain on the parade. Let me offer you an umbrella.

I have nothing against religion -- if it works for you, it's great. Granted, the existence of a Creator, the Logos, the Word in the Beginning, is very comforting. One doesn't have to own any fundamentalist creationist crap stock to believe in a creator, of course. Used to be a mainline Protestant believer myself.

I don't find our unexplained existence sans grand purpose to be a problem, any more than dealing with the various problems which arise from creator myths. Whatever theological overlay one applies, life is still the same. One should still be nice to children, still say you are sorry to the dog if you step on her foot, still call or visit one's parents regularly; still stay in touch with one's siblings, still feed the hungry, care for the sick, comfort the bereaved; still brush daily, floss regularly, exercise, eat healthy food rather that junk; stay informed, vote liberal-left, and so on.

We should still do those things because they make our brief stay nicer, whether there is a god to approve or disapprove.

why did you get chosen? — Purple Pond

it is just so unlikely — Purple Pond

It's like the universe conspired to have me exist — Purple Pond

absurd to believe that I'm here for no reason at all — Purple Pond

I beat the odds — Purple Pond

Our existence makes us biased in assessing the significance of our existence.

Since humans became a species, there have been perhaps 100 billion of us conceived and born. So no, we're nothing special, really. We weren't chosen, we happened. You didn't beat the odds. Like it or not, you are here for no reason whatsoever. The universe has bigger fish to fry than plotting how to bring you or me into existence.

However, now that we do exist, we might as well make the most of our brief time before we are annihilated and rejoin the infinite tribe of the non-existent. It will be back to the vacuum and cold dust of the universe all too soon.

How's that for emotional uplift?

Except that it isn't a lack of ethical knowledge that causes people to behave psychopathically. It's a developmental flaw in the structure of the brain. Normally, there is a strong connection between the pre-frontal cerebral cortex and the limbic system. This connection (a literal circuit of neurons) causes children to fear punishment for naughty behavior, and leads them to seek parental approval for good behavior. In psychopaths (it is thought) this circuit does not function, and psychopathic children don't make a punishment fear connection, or a reward-good behavior connection, either.

Psychopaths don't fear punishment, and they don't develop normal relationships or human ties to place and people, either. Most psychopaths are not motivated to commit murder, but some are. In cases where people with psychopathic tendencies become business managers, they are able to carry out decisions that normal people would find quite painful -- like laying off 15,000 workers to improve profitability. The boss with psychopathic tendencies won't lose any sleep over it. A touch of psychopathy can be mighty useful in various positions--just so long as it's just a smidgeon and not a whole lot.

So teaching ethics won't help them. I don't think there is any established therapy, however. Maybe you could find one that would address their brain problems.

However, there is an issue that I haven't mentioned about antidepressant medications, they tend to poop out with time. In my experience, after a while the antidepressant effects subside and your left with feeling apathetic or unmotivated. — Posty McPostface

In my long history of taking antidepressants and anti anxiety drugs, I certainly found that to be true. If they work, which they don't always do for a given individual, they eventually fail--usually. I'd say benzodiazapine drugs like Xanax or Ativan fail predictably, or in susceptible persons, become an addiction issue.

And, motivation is an important thing, don't you think? I would say that motivation or the desire to get better is the best prognosis for remission from depression. What these drugs do is make you content with everything (mostly the SSRI's), and leave you or me, from personal experience, apathetic and unmotivated. That's a hole many people get stuck in. Doing some armchair psychology, I suppose that the best time to address depression is when you first get into it, then the cause of it is easier to discern, I think. — Posty McPostface

The Radical Therapist magazine (long since defunct) had for a slogan "Therapy means change, not adjustment" and illustrated their motto with a chick hatched out of its shell (change). I think that is very true, but... Most people can not simply change their circumstances and environment, however. We have roles which we want to fulfill, and are expected or needed by others to fulfill, and just up and leaving job, home, husband, wife, children, dog, and/or cat behind is not something most people want or are willing to do, and for very good reason.

But sometimes it has to be done, at least in part. Usually the job is the first to go. Maybe one goes on disability, and being relieved of the stress, sturm, and drang of the job makes for a huge improvement. Maybe the difficulties of a very stressful relationship are relieved by a separation, separate housing, or divorce. Sometimes extremely difficult situations are made better by the unfortunate death of a partner (like where there is chronic debilitating illness, old age, etc.)

These drastic changes can lead in time to a genuine recovery from depression, anxiety, and dysfunction, if the individual is able to make good on the opportunity presented.

I would think that an unempathetic, psychopathic, and remorseless criminal should be considered a 'mental illness' or at least some illness of some sort, one so dire and socially unacceptable that would require society to designate special housing areas (prisons) to hold such people there(?) — Posty McPostface

Well, Posty, psychopathic and remorselessly criminal behavior is considered a severe mental illness. People found to act out psychopathic murderous thoughts usually end up on death row, life in prison without parole, or in a high security psychiatric facility for life.

Some people contemplate and carry out arson, rape, and bloody murder, but most people are content to defraud, lie, cheat, steal, rob, embezzle, rip off, remove for personal use, waste, defraud, abuse, and so on -- criminal behavior for sure, but not society shattering, as long as it is kept to a minimum. All these crimes against property can wreck society if it gets out of hand. One wants a drink of water, "but the pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handle", as Bob Dylan sang.

But, wouldn't it be a good society if its participants were equally good, and concerned with the examined life? — Posty McPostface

Sure, but remember: we're talking about human society here, not a society of saints and angels.

I think that the term 'mental disorder or illness' is detrimental to the prognosis of the patient. It labels them as dysfunctional and incapable of performing mundane activities — Posty McPostface

Well, people with significant illnesses are dysfunctional. If one has a severe case of tuberculosis, for instance, one is pretty much dysfunctional, whether one likes it or not. People who are paralyzed by infections, injuries, or strokes are dysfunctional. They can't function.

Mental illnesses sometimes make people dysfunctional and able to perform ONLY mundane activities, like self care. More severe mental illnesses may make it impossible for the person to even take care of their own bodily needs. But such severe consequences aren't usually long lasting. Someone who is in stark-raving-mad-psychosis will eventually calm down (especially with major tranquilizers) and then function much better. Even return to mental health.

What severe mental illness especially interferes with is higher, more complex tasks, like manipulating data, complex design work, difficult memory and learning tasks, and so on.

One of the simplest things to try to learn how to do is slow your heart rate during meditation. It doesn't require great spiritual capacity. Very experienced meditators can, within a hermetically sealed box, lower their blood pressure, heart rate, metabolism, oxygen uptake, and some other aspects of their physiology, and then signal when they need fresh air.

Yes, it is significant that the monk did not display involuntary movement after he was consumed by the fuel-driven fire. Perhaps he had arrived at a state of reduced biological activity. The fire enveloped him instantly and would have deprived him of further oxygen. I'm sure he suffered -- there could be no escape from brief but very severe pain.

I've convinced myself that I don't need to know the truth about anything — Purple Pond

Knowing the truth might be highly inconvenient, and because inconvenient, also disadvantageous.

Hmm, guess no takers then. — Posty McPostface

So, postface, where are you??? Have you abandoned your computer to deal with wild fires, or something? The least you could do is respond to my penetrating thoughts before you rush away to save your hide.

Most of the new drugs aren't even superior to some 20 or 30-year-old Prozac or Clozapine. — Posty McPostface

That seems to be the case. Perhaps the basic mechanism of affecting mental performance with drugs was present in the first generation of psychoactive meds (like tri-cyclic anti-depressants) and hasn't really been improved upon, except for reducing some side effects.

Conflating immoral and unethical behavior with mental illness would seem to undermine the concept of responsibility. SOMETIMES people behave badly because they are mentally ill, but usually people of sound mind decide to behave badly, and are responsible for their misdeeds.

For instance, someone who handles a lot of cash may decide to divert some of it into their own pocket simply because at the time of collection there were no receipts. For instance, the amount of cash in a collection plate at a meeting or political rally isn't known until it is counted. If one person counts it out of sight of other people, it is quite easy to "under-count" and pocket the difference, without arousing suspicion. That's why there are controls in place when cash is counted -- two unrelated people are present, for instance, to do the counting.

How about "Mental health is present when individuals are satisfied by their functioning within broadly defined intellectual and emotional standards"?

So two things need to be present: Actual functioning needs to be approximately, roughly, normal, and individuals need to feel satisfied that their functioning is normal. They don't have to be happy, they don't have to be highly ethical or moral.

So, if a person is experiencing depressed mental functioning, finds that memory, concentration, appetite, and libido are greatly reduced, and recognizes this as a problem...; if an individual is experiencing hallucinations (auditory or visual), intense fear, agitation, and whose sensory input seems o be quite distorted, we would also say the individual was mentally ill.

There are a batch of mental illnesses that present definite symptoms that can be identified readily.

Morality and ethics are a concern in mental health when the individual abruptly abandon an ethical or moral standard that they used to follow. So, if someone whose behavior was scrupulously honest begins to lie, cheat, and steal, it might signal a disorder which wasn't previously present. On the other hand, if lying, cheating, and stealing were always part of the individual's modus operandi, their poor moral behavior might signal nothing amiss intellectually or emotionally. People who are engaged in career criminal behavior can be mentally healthy. Tony Soprano's fellow crooks appeared to have normal mental health functioning.

I hold that people can choose to be dishonest (lie, cheat, steal) and be mentally healthy. What they can't do is be moral or ethical while they are lying, cheating, or stealing.

it’s not as good as it used to be”. — javra

But then, what is?

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by "breaking new ground". — Janus

To be honest, I don't know exactly what I mean by "breaking new ground". Louis Moreau Gottschalk broke new ground in the 19th century with pieces that in retrospect have many aspects of the later ragtime and jazz. Ragtime and jazz, on the other hand, broke new ground in source, rhythms, melodies, style of performance, etc. Bluegrass descended from Appalachian folk music rooted in the British Isles, but it still broke new ground with instrumentation, and new songs. I don't think the banjo was much used in UK.

Elvis Presley and Company broke new ground in creating Rock and Roll from its predecessors. R&R fused with prior forms and morphed several times. Then heavy metal, grunge, rap, etc. All these breaking new ground.

So, lots of ground was broken. Some musicians had to break new ground for themselves in order to adopt new styles, but their efforts didn't constitute breaking new ground for the genre.

A lot of music, from medieval to whatever is hot off the press at show time tonight, sounds alike. It's not bad that a lot of music sound alike, but it does indicate a plateau has been reached, or a vein of creative ore has been exhausted. This isn't a failure, it's just life. Gregorian Chant lasted for centuries without much change, and that's a sign of chant's strength--its enduring continuity.

There is so much great music available today -- in the various media -- that one need never listen to anything third rate. From early medieval to yesterday, there are tons of choices, and many of the choices are among suburb alternatives.

Producers in any art form can not continually break new ground over their careers. The most inspired artists have a limited capacity for creation. We all have limited capacity, no matter what field we work in. I am not sure that the forms of art themselves can continually break new ground over time.

Take a long view of painting: In the 19th century, there was a shift from various styles of more or less realistic representation to non-realistic representations, and eventually to the works of people like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. Note, I used the word "shift" and not "progress" or "deterioration". But where does one go after one has reached dribbling paint or paintings which are one solid color?

Over the long run, music presents a similar situation, and individually musicians run out of new ideas. How could it be otherwise? J. S. Bach's warehouse of composition wasn't uniformly original. Were each of Haydn's 100+ symphonies totally novel? No, they weren't. Would Mozart's output have included totally novel approaches had he lived another 30 years?

Many musicians are one hit wonders, even though they produce much more. Lots of groups flash in the sky, turn out several great albums, then break up -- good for them. They won't be spending the rest of their lives disappointing the fan base.

And the fan base is part of the problem: We and the performers have a mutually dependent relationship. No fans, no income. No income, no groups.

"I try to think, but nothing happens."

Yes, much simpler. Thanks.

Stoicism seems to fit this description well, based on what I know as someone who just started learning about it. — JustSomeGuy

Ciceronianus the White is our resident stoic. He's a long-time member, going back to this forum's previous incarnation. You might want to PM him for some private stoic-talk, or ask him to join the discussion. How to find him? Click on MEMBERS at the top of the page and then select "names" for listing the members. The 'C's are not too deep down, so it won't take you long to find him.

But I always eventually go back to questioning it all and feeling very down and uncertain and nihilistic about everything for a time. It's possible that this just has to do with my personality, and this is just a natural cycle I go through and will continue to go through. — JustSomeGuy

Yes, that is a possibility. There are a few people I know who don't go through cycles of hope and despair (in more or less diluted strength) but most people seem to. I certainly did for decades. All that sturm and drang has finally evened out and the world looks reasonably hopeful (and real) pretty much all of the time. Maybe it's just me getting old and senile.

But the thing is, and a lot of philosopher-types find this annoyingly inconvenient, our limbic systems (emotions, affect, all that) have a lot to do with the kind of thoughts that seem reasonable to our pre-frontal cortexes. When our limbic system is in the dirge phase, the world looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes... like a rather depressing, stale, cheap motel. On the other hand, when the band strikes up a lively march, the world seems pretty good again--hopeful, promising, upbeat. A fine place to stay!

If we have difficulty deciding what is real, we also have difficulty parsing out whether it is our intellectual facilities or our emotional machinery that is causing the world to seem depressing or delightful. I have not found the key to figuring that out, but what most people seem to do is just keep going, whether the world looks good or not -- and eventually things seem more positive--one hopes for quite a while.

unless there is some universally agreed upon goal/objective for human mental functioning and some universally agreed upon threshold for good within that functioning--and nobody has said what those are--it makes no sense to state categorically that some people think better than others. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

There doesn't have to be some 'universally agreed upon' because it is merely my assessment that some people think better than some other people. If we were going to claim that "Everyone living in the Western Hemisphere thanks better than everyone in Asia, or Africa, or Europe--there would be far more need for definitions and standards of mental functioning. Intelligence tests, for instance, are based o a set of definitions and standards for determining how intelligent someone is (in as much as it is possible for the best tests to do that).

But actually I am basing my personal judgement on something. I have thought about certain kinds of problems, and have made little headway towards a solution. Sometimes I talk to people who have thought about the same thing, and they have worked through it with ease and brilliance. Sometimes I am talking with people who are struggling with some problem, and to me it is obvious what a good solution would be (I'm not talking about personal matters here).

A good 'back of the envelope' test of whether people are thinking effectively is how well they solve complex every-day kinds of problems. If you look, you will see that success in solving problems looks different than failure to solve problems. Some people do it better than others.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. — TimeLine

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an express train bearing down on you.

If 'ideology' is an organized set of beliefs, principles, and habits, then I think most people benefit from having a positive ideology. (There are negative ideologies--like nihilism, for example.) Many people rely on religion for the basic shape of their 'ideology', or they mine the classic philosophical approaches. Some people are eclectic, gathering together a more or less congenial assortment of philosophical planks with which to build their platform.

Depending on how thorough your Catholic upbringing was, you may or may not have a basically Christian ideology in place. It's quite difficult to root out the first moral teachings one receives, and it probably isn't a good idea, anyway, without having some kind of transformative experience which reshapes the way you look at the world. Certainly, our childhood moral instruction should be subject to criticism, and intelligently edited.

You are certainly not alone in feeling like you are at loose ends. Feeling that way seems to be endemic. You, however, have the tools to solve the problem.

How does one operationalize the belief that "...nothing is certain. Absolutely nothing"? Has gravity failed you recently? How about time -- did it stop? The physical world does have some certainty, seems like, and ignoring those certainties can invoke another certainty -- death, the last certainty. That said, life can still be very disappointing, and there is considerable uncertainty as to the
who, when, where, what, how, and why" disappointing experiences will be arranged for us.

Any good ideology has to account for life being unsatisfactory a fair share of the time, but at the same time "letting the good times roll".

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

Do they not have pronouns in Spanish then? — JJJJS

Spanish is more "inflected" than English, meaning words change more, depending on present tense, past tense; first person ("I"), third person ("you") etc. Hablar means "to speak". Hablo means "I speak". Hablo Español means "I speak Spanish". Hablamos español means "we speak Spanish.

Hablo I speak
Hablas You speak
Hablamos We speak

Sometimes pronouns are used, sometimes not. I, you, it, we = Yo, tú, eso, nosotros. Spanish has a familiar and formal pronoun. Tú is familiar "you"; (singular) and vosotros is familiar plural you. Usted is singular formal you, ustedes is plural formal you.

Usted es muy Inteligente, You are very intelligent.

if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it? — DPMartin

If heathens, pagans and uncircumcised Philistines find something useful and humanizing in what Jesus said, they should be encouraged to make use of it, even if they don't buy the whole kielbasa.

Maybe Jesus is more important as the Word made flesh than for what He, as flesh, had to say. [As a Moravian hymn writer put it, "God lies in a manger, in flesh now appearing.) Jesus preached; he said a lot of things, no doubt. Some of them were remembered; most of them weren't. Most likely some people slept through the Sermon on the Mount. It doesn't matter.

It's the Incarnation as the Lamb of God that matters--according to Christian theology. Jesus did not say "you must remember everything I say. Woe unto you who didn't take copious notes. You will be cast into the darkness if your notes aren't complete." He also didn't say, did he, that you must swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. After all, "the whole thing" didn't exist while he was alive. "The whole thing" started with Jesus but then various and sundry theological engineers built a giant gaudy (not Goudy) edifice on top of the Body of Christ.

One doesn't need to be a Christian to understand this.

It is my understanding that the eye for an eye principle was established before the dates of the old testament. — T Clark

The "eye for an eye" principle was first enunciated in Hammurabi's Code. He was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC.

It was published in cuneiform on this xxxxx large dildo for every one to observe. \\

seems as if most people are hardwired to feel life is good or "worth it" regardless of what their living conditions are like. — Philosophersstoney

If indeed most people are hardwired (by evolution's long project) to feel like life is worth it, then perhaps there is something right about people who feel life is worth living.

I mean, you have granted that it is normal, natural, to feel good about existing, then you sneer at the 98% or 99% who feel that way. Maybe you are sneering at the wrong group.

Better according to what standard? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Saying that some people think better than other people do is a truism. It's like saying "Good food is better than bad food."

I think it's obvious that some people think better than I do (they are just smarter than me, more insightful, logical, etc.) and it's obviously that I think better than some people too. Some people are better looking, have bigger dicks, make better pie crust, are stronger, healthier, etc. than other people.

WISDOMfromPO-MO, are you aware -- if not, allow me -- that 50% of the population is below average?

I suppose Jesus always knew best, but one has to wonder whether Lazarus, who was already starting to stink pretty badly, really wanted to come back to life.

Right. Not sure that Jesus meant that literally. Though some people these days are willing to cut off your hand for you if they think it causes you to commit sins.

Sometimes Jesus speaks in very harsh terms, and I'm guessing that there was a cultural opening for that, and Jesus, of course, came from that culture. Other times he is very gentle.

Obviously getting chummy with the victim might not be appropriate in rape cases. However, I think that perpetrators need to perform sacrificial acts of some kind on behalf of their victims -- something more productive than spending 10 years in a box at state expense (and it's quite a bit of expense).

Said in the same vain as what Jesus said to the rich young man who wanted to follow Him: "First, go and sell all you have." The young man went away sadly [because he couldn't give up his wealth].

"Your family business comes second to the Kingdom of God." or worse than second. It's a tough demand.

What's the superior alternative? — Marchesk

Well, one alternative is restorative justice. It's best applied for young offenders and relatively minor crimes. It involves bringing the offender and the victim together (in a structured setting) to help the offender understand what his actions meant, and then help him or her come up with a compensation of some kind -- not necessarily a fine, more likely some kind of work engagement with the victim.

Restorative justice could be applied to older offenders and more serious crimes, too, but with more state involvement and likely still involve jail and/or a fine.

eye for an eye — Posty McPostface

The "eye for an eye" rule was a major step up in ethics. The non-ethical man visits unlimited devastation on those who harm his family, himself, his property. Insult my wife, you die. Injury my horse accidentally, I'll give you a whipping, etc.

The eye-for-an-eye rule limits action to proportional retribution. So, it's an advance.

The Golden Rule -- which existed before Jesus came along, of course, is a further advance. One would want maximum consideration and mercy for one's own misdeeds, so give maximum consideration and mercy to others' misdeeds.

The Golden Rule begin with the self because we can only know what guilt and punishment feel like for ourselves.

Then there is the other meaning of the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules.

Music — TimeLine

Right. My self-frenchification program isn't making a whole lot of progress, but one of the best parts of what French I have learned has been by listening to "older" french songs, like 1930s - 1950s. The styles of singing are straight forward and enunciation is pretty good. Plus, I like the music, and it's all new to me. It's suave, romantic -- well some of it. The French are as capable of corny pop music as every other culture. One particularly good song is a bitter complaint about being a ticket puncher at a Paris subway station. Le Poinçonneur Des Lilas by Serge Gainsbourg.

Je suis le poinçonneur des Lilas
Le gars qu'on croise et qu'on n' regarde pas
Y a pas de soleil sous la terre
Drôle de croisière
Pour tuer l'ennui j'ai dans ma veste
Les extraits du Reader Digest
Et dans ce bouquin y a écrit
Que des gars se la coulent douce à Miami
Pendant ce temps que je fais le zouave
Au fond de la cave
Paraît que y a pas de sot métier
Moi je fais des trous dans des billets



I’m the ticket puncher at Lilas.
To me the passengers pay no regard.
There is no sunshine in this Metro station.
Strange vacation.
To kill the boredom, in my vest,
I have extracts from Readers Digest,
And this book says to me,
That life is just a ball in Miami,
All the while I’m working like a slave,
Down in this cave,
They say work’s better than the dole
But all day long I just make holes
I punch holes, little holes and more little holes
Little holes, little holes, always little holes
I make second class holes
And punch first class holes
I punch holes, little holes and more little holes
Little holes, little holes, always little holes
Little holes, little holes
Little holes, little holes.

So, what Spanish speaking country are you in, how long have you been there, how is language acquisition going so far, and what method are you using to learn the language?

Yo hablaría español, pero soy demasiado estúpido para hacerlo. I suspect hablaría is subjunctive. (Oh, it's conditional.) Get acquainted with the subjunctive tense.

Present Imperfect Imperfect 2 Future
yo hable hablara hablase hablare

It looks like an automated glitch. When you post a new discussion, there is a little box for "question" and "poll". It might be the case that the "question" box is checked by default.

Heads will roll. Or as Google translates that into Spanish, rodarán cabezas -- they will roll heads.
That idiom problem.