gambler

Did he look at epigenetics? Nature did a huge study few years back where they were looking for genes responsible for homosexuality but couldn't find them. But the thing is, twins can have differing sexual orientations. So looking for a gene is obviously useless. You'd have to look for epigenetic differences, the difference in how genes express themselves.

I'm aware of this. But wouldn't this just be a revelation rather than a spiritual experience? I assumed this was just an intrusive thought he had.

Do you have any examples off the top of your head?

Was this true for Carl Jung?

Build a Time Machine and ask him.

He probably can't afford to provide for her. The Lebanese economy is in the dumps. She would have to be the breadwinner, so they got to find him a rich woman who can make up for his lack of provisioning while simultaneously being fine with that arrangement.

Leave the poor squirrels alone, they’re just by their lonesome looking for a nut.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/14/israel-betar-deportation-list-trump Of course no cries of cancel culture to be heard. People wonder why the left sucks, it’s because non of its politicians will call this cancel culture. The whole lot are stooges for Israel, including Bernie Sanders.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israel-hamas-war/article/us-and-israel-look-to-africa-for-moving-palestinians-uprooted-from-gaza/?taid=67d452aab6079300016668fd U.S. and Israel look to Africa for moving Palestinians uprooted from Gaza JERUSALEM — The U.S. and Israel have reached out to officials of three East African governments to discuss using their territories as potential destinations for moving Palestinians uprooted from the Gaza Strip under U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed postwar plan, American and Israeli officials told The Associated Press. The contacts with Sudan, Somalia and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland reflect the determination by the U.S. and Israel to press ahead with a plan that has been widely condemned and raised serious legal and moral issues. Because all three places are poor, and in some cases wracked by violence, the proposal also casts doubt on Trump’s stated goal of resettling Gaza’s Palestinians in a “beautiful area.”

Just need to inject it with roids

Hojo you're Canadian too?

The popular choice right now for the upcoming election is Pierre Poilievre of the conservative party. If he is a populist (I don't know much about this guy), he is nowhere near Trump's level. But I guess that's obvious. No one is near Trump's level

From the Islamic point of view, these are all in the same category of being impermissible to eat. There is nothing special about pork. The only reason why westerners make a big deal out of Muslims not eating pork as opposed to a dog, is because they themselves eat pig. Honestly, I think it has to do with preserving the perception of the religious community. In our world, based on mental heuristics, it's easier to mock or laugh at a group of people who eat animals that others find strange like cats, dogs, monkeys, pigs, rats, or whatever. Just look at how West Africans were mocked when Ebola broke out, and people learned they eat bush meat, or how East Asian cultures are mocked for consuming horses, grasshoppers, or cats. If Judaism had remained the only group that permitted eating pigs, they would likely have been mocked for it by the rest of the world. There may have been an awareness of how future perception of swine-consumption could evolve. If they didn't prohibit pork, it could have been a poor judgment call. After all, it wasn't obvious that swine consumption would continue to be widely accepted. Religion strives for superior optics, even if you believe these things are just baked in dogma. A civilization that collectively refrained from eating these animals would likely feel more secure, as this aligns with mental heuristics. If religion's goal is to uphold the moral fabric of its society, it would want its followers to feel secure in their beliefs—secure enough to remain committed to the faith and to defending its moral order. In Islam's case, aligning with the Old Testament prohibition reinforced that sense of security. If it had diverged, it could have created unnecessary tension.

Hmmm. You gave me something to think about. So what drives people to continue to be highly ambitious despite achieving a considerable amount of wealth? Is it status? Curiosity? Meaning? Philanthropy? Problem Solving? Lifestyle? Individual pride? Innate desire to do something that attracts them to its highest level because it's what they love to do? A combination of these things or is there more to it? Some people say 30 million is enough, but when they get to that milestone, despite their lifestyle being extremely frugal, they still say it's not enough and want more. What drives that?

How about skin in the game? People can develop better knowledge, work ethic, and other qualities if they had more skin in their success, like starting a small business. And the same with if they themselves are responsible with their investment choices. It could open the door to the person reading up like crazy, learning finance and accounting stuff, the industry, business, competitors, analytics, and all sorts of important things that increase their chances and ability to create success for themselves. More skin in the game can also influence living arrangements and current employment. If they have a comfortable living arrangement, they don't have as much skin in their lack of higher level of success, so they might be content with doing something that doesn't lead to a lot of wealth. But if they know in a year from now the living arrangement would cease, and current employment won't cut it anymore, they could be more motivated to journey on a different path. One that would be more successful in providing a better life.

Serial monogamy is an alternative. And without being deeply attached to lust, your chances of remaining loyal during the relationship, as well as the duration of the relationship, is better. So there's still something to gain.

I’m Canadian 🇨🇦🇨🇦

It depends on the war. If Trump were ever to invade Canada, I don’t care that I can’t pass the physical to join the military. I’m getting armed one way or another, and I’m going to fight.

Precisely. You have a choice to make. You can corrupt your schemas, or you can preserve it. If kept preserved, you’re less likely to fail at being monogamous. Corrupting yourself to awaken lust is not worth it. What baffles me is when you’re on the straight path, too many want to bring you down with them. Non-stop gaslighting about how you’re sexually repressed, an oddball, not a man, missing out, will be unable to keep a woman because of your lack of experience, and so on and so forth. When really the partner you want, wouldn’t care about your lack of experience. They create and maintain an environment and culture, on top of actively attempting to shame you down to their level, in order for everyone to be like them—unable to do the most basic thing the average human has the capacity to do, which is delaying gratification. Just look at the poster 2 posts above me, why does he care about what you choose to do with your body? Why is he shaming you? If you see the benefit in your values and ability to refrain from these things on a problematic level, that society falsely attempts to brainwash you to believe is unrealistic because you’re an animal with a chimp brain and blah blah blah, then there is nothing wrong with coming to this realization.

What did I just read… This has always been sexual harassment. Why would you assume in ancient times a woman didn’t see this as a violation of her boundary? Especially since this aggression would signal to her that you might sexually assault her.

We badly need to terraform the MENA deserts. The entire region is undergoing rapid desertification, and the hot climate is steadily increasing. It's already becoming harder to sustain human life in some vulnerable areas, like in Mauritania for instance.

Make Vanilla Sex Great Again

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crknjgrd3geo “The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) - which monitors fighting in Syria - said about 745 civilians were killed in 30 "massacres" targeting Alawites on the west coast on Friday and Saturday. The BBC has not been able to independently verify the death toll of the escalating violence, believed to be the worst since the fall of the Assad regime.” I don’t even know what to say other than this was inevitable and blood boiling.

@Husseinisdoingfine what kind of slop is this? generally speaking, all of his wars were either defensive or in response to the threat of persecution. conversions were most often slow, gradual, and non-violent. there is also nothing in the koran that says if you can't convert someone it's better to kill them, that's one hell of a misrepresentation. you can dislike the religion and have your own problem with it, but please come with something better. there are a million better takes against it than this.