People are contrarian signaling over “why should he know the population”
Because it shows that he has a general idea of the makeup of the country. Compare a country like Iraq (45M) or Afghanistan (41M) with Iran (90M).
It’s twice their size.
Iran is also a space-faring nation. They started launching satellites in 2009, they have advanced hypersonic missiles.
It’s just a very, very different country than our previous Middle East adventures, and Tucker quizzing him on this was to elucidate the fact that Ted’s primary driving motivation to get the US involved is (as Ted himself admitted in another section of the interview) a doomsday prophecy based on a hilariously absurd (and Israel-serving) misreading of the Bible.
Go get those kids baptized! Use it as an excuse to throw a huge party.
I keep seeing photos of Pope Leo and the patriarch of Constantinople together. I really pray that there is something unifying coming soon. Lots of the EO stuff is beautiful, and in my mind these are the same church, just different forms of the mass. EO occupies a similar space in my mind to the TLM.
A very very common story is:
“I kindof like the architecture” -> “I guess I’ll send my kids to Catholic school since they’re good schools” -> “praying the rosary is kindof nice” -> “confession is cathartic” -> “I believe in one god, the father almighty, the maker of heaven and earth”
The positive feelings you are experiencing in these places are you interacting with grace. That’s good, keep following the things that feel good in that way, and if there are things you don’t like, don’t do them.
I truly truly do not understand why these people don't just go be Catholic.
-
It's ancient, and mysterious (it's 2000 years old)
-
It has nearly unlimited "aura"; home to the most beautiful buildings and art on earth
-
There is unlimited amounts of "mysticism" if that's what you're looking for. Most churches hold something called "adoration" where they open the tabernacle and allow people to sit and pray in what they (we) consider the true presence of the body of Christ.
-
Continuing on the mysticism, there are things like The Rosary, and holy water.
-
If you want to try and get "Buddhism but Christian", you're in luck. We have prayer beads (the rosary), mantras (prayers), monks, ancient philosophy and meditation.
I don't even know how to properly address the "science" question that people seem to want to throw at religious people as a Catholic. There is nothing in Catholicism which is incompatible with wanting to pursue science and we Catholics would consider scientific inquiry a good thing. The big bang, evolution, whatever els, etc. these things are all not just "allowed" within the doctrine, but encouraged.
I think there's a weird thing happening where the new atheists did a good job of attacking the absurd claims of evangelical protestantism, but somehow lumped the Catholics in with them. I think people are waking up to this, but the contrarianism that led them to atheism to begin with doesn't let them just return to the obvious answer (the Catholic church). I think that's basically also why you see some of these people gravitating towards the Eastern Orthodox church. They can't just go be OG Christians, you see, they have to find this other offshoot thing so that they can maintain some sense that they were always right, and that the "real" church was hidden or something.
Just go be Catholic. It's annoying how obvious the answer to all of this is. There's nothing clever or surprising, it really just was the most obvious thing all along.
As I have said, you really need to reevaluate the claim that you are "2 sigma" beyond the depth and breadth of emotions that most people are experiencing.
My wife does not "grant me access to her body", sex is an act of mutual participation, and a physical manifestation of the love that we have for one another.
What you are describing is sex with a prostitute; a simulacra of sex inside of a loving relationship. It is the Polynesian cargo cultists constructing bamboo control towers and runways hoping to summon back the western airplanes, but without an understanding of what they were doing.
In the analogy, Aella and her compatriots have noticed the cargo cultists and started selling them bamboo. They have realized that there are men who recognize the aesthetics of a loving relationship, and that they can simulate this and charge for it.
This was your original claim;
In a normal, healthy, average relationship, men trade resources and services for sex. That’s just how it goes. Prostitution simply formalizes the exchange.
Elaborate on this. I have never traded resources or services for sex.
I, along with perhaps billions of other people will tell you that they are in love with their wives/husbands and children, and that yes it is subconscious.
Your frustration with this is because you haven’t personally experienced it. You should reevaluate your belief that you are experiencing a wider range, more intense set of emotions than most people, because you apparently have no experience with the emotion that much of the world feels most intensely, and you apparently do not feel at all.
As to your question: the harm that people like Aella have done to society is to convince people of the incorrect, unhealthy, anti social framework of understanding that you are presenting here.
Yes, love is real, yes it is healthy to love your wife and children, and no this is not all transactional. You, nor Aella, nor the red pill people, nor the pickup artist people before them, nor any of the other people of that persuasion have discovered something unique insight into human emotion. Aella et al have figured out an exploit in the human psyche that enriches them, at your expense and the expense of the rest of their customers.
I really want to explore your claim about feeling more emotions than other people, but also imagining a romantic relationship as purely transactional.
Can you expand on this?
2 sigma above the mean in terms of the intensity and variety of emotions I experience
Given that you cannot imagine the love that a man and woman would have for one another in a relationship, I doubt this.
In a normal, healthy, average relationship, men trade resources and services for sex. That’s just how it goes.
That is not just how it goes.
Do you believe that human emotions exist?
How should society treat a prostitute who encourages other women to become prostitutes? She's a predator. She is preying on the minds of other young women, as well as on the minds of young men.
There are countless stories from every culture in the history of the human species that portrays people like her as some form of demon that should be cast out of society at best. People aren't being as nice to her as she wants, and she wants to continue preying on them. Even this sob story about how she claims to be surprised that people don't like her is yet another attempt at hijacking the attention of people by violating sexual norms.
Yes she is a human being and I don't want her to suffer, but she should feel a nearly infinite amount of shame for the harm she has done to the people around her. I hope she figures this our and starts working to repair it.
No human being is irredeemable, and this includes her; part of that redemption is an acknowledgment that what she has been doing has been harming society. I truly hope she can figure this out, and once she does society will welcome her with open arms.
No, I'm positing that the category {adjective}-{noun}, does not automatically imply zero overlap with category {noun}.
Is an orange apple any part orange? There are many subcategories of orange, but is an apple which has been colored orange in any of them?
No. An orange apple is an apple.
This is also why trans-activists fight so hard to call these men "trans women", instead of the correct "trans men" (men, who are trans). They are part of the super-category "men", and then part of the subcategory "trans", as in: they are men who wish to violate the typical dress and behavior norms of other men.
There is no amount of linguistic sophistry that means that a man in a dress is no longer a man. Even if you could get the entire world to refer to men in dresses as women, we would create a new word for actual women, and the language would change to accommodate this. Changing the words does not change the underlying reality of what they're describing, in this case: men.
You're just continuing down the linguistic treadmill. Are trans-women a distinct category that is different than "cis" women?
Yes, that is why you can identify them as "trans women". Regardless of the semantics: trans woman(2030 parlance) = man(<2030 parlance).
It doesn't matter. The language is simply describing the reality, which is that "trans women" are men.
To use your analogy: if we genetically engineer an apple to be the color orange, it is still an apple, just an orange one. We could call it an "orange apple", but tit's still just an apple which is orange.
A man in a dress is still a man, just a man with a dress on.
Trans women are trans women.
Your (correct) point highlights the biggest flaw in their arguments. "Trans women are women", well no they aren't because you already gave them a category called "trans women" which you can obviously identify, is obviously useful to you, and obviously has a meaning. That meaning is: men who are dressing like women, or in other words again: men.
Bannon does a daily podcast with an extremely active base of people. It's not like anything else that I know of.
As much as he doesn't really have Trump's ear anymore, he does have the ear of a lot of MAGA.
Take her contacts.
What?
Downside risk is serious, upside benefits are usually small.
You've got this backwards. The upside risk is infinite, and the downside risk isn't. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are still billionaires, btw.
admit that current advice is insufficient?
The current advice is insufficient only in that it is not clear enough to men that they need to stop whining.
Whaaa this untamable wilderness isn't being fair
Whaaa this untamable ocean isn't being fair
Whaaa this vast untable universe isn't being fair
None of the men who have ever done anything of note ever at any point in human history have done so by meeting something that was fair. Your effort and the effort of the women you want to date will not be equal. It will not balance out. If anything, the shortcoming of the advice you have heard is that you would ever expect that.
Man was not owed the wilderness, and men are not owed women.
Why is it so impossible to be better? And why don't you simply date lower status women, and then elevate their status?
My wife certainly would not fit your criteria and we have been happily together for almost 15 years, married for a substantial portion of that, and have a bunch of kids.
My wife started significantly more liberal than me, but is now radically more conservative than I am, she was vehemently anti-religion, and is now an extremely devout Catholic who prays the rosary multiple times a day, wants endless deep conversations about religious philosophy, and would happily go to church with me every day if we could handle it with the number of kids we have.
I'm going to be blunt: a lot of the men I talk to about dating are just weak losers. Stop being a weak loser. Women want a man who is going to take care of them, and in a sense "tame" them. Look at every single female erotica story and it's some version of "strong willed man tames crazy rebellious woman" (often wrapped in: strong man sees the thing in rebellious woman that nobody else saw and they tame each other, but she still wants him to remain strong and only tamed towards her).
I see a lot of men who whine and complain that they don't want a "project", or a woman that isn't already the perfect match for them. Well...okay, man, but the entire world is made mostly by men who like the idea of a "project" in basically every facet of their entire lives, so maybe your status as single is a feature of evolution.
The only thing I agree with on your criteria is: STDs/sex work. That is a dealbreaker.
Can anybody give a QRD of why Trump seems particularly pissed off at Harvard?
Can you give the comment? I don't know what you think relates these things to each other.
Do you tip them for that?
The people at the hotel know what's going on. She knows what's going on. The guy knows whats going on, and even the person who lost the scarf all know what's going on and if anybody in this chain of people cared, then it would break the chain and the behavior wouldn't happen.
This is just a totally different thing than stealing and the fact that so many people can't understand this is illuminating.
Because the scarf wasn't stolen from me. I lost it.
If I lost something useful, I would prefer that somebody find it and uses it rather than it going to waste completely.
Here's a slight rotation of this: if I buy something online and don't end up needing it, instead of throwing it away I usually post it on a "buy nothing" group, or put it in the alley so that somebody who wants it can take it. It feels like less of a waste than if I throw it in the trash.
- Prev
- Next
They're not even spies. It's just AIPAC.
More options
Context Copy link