Gesundheit

February, the 14th. Can't get any more obvious. And I'm already wet lol.

Be-cause.

I like the stoic perspective on friendships: https://dailystoic.com/6-stoic-tips-to-being-a-great-friend/

I would be lying if I said one girl would be enough. But I haven't been in a really long term relationship either, so I don't know. EDIT: This just popped up in my Facebook feed: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/margaret-derek-firth-partington-trafford-19786352

Watch the movie Nymphomaniac.

@Kyle Gjerseth Describe the fear of intimacy in details. I don't quite understand what that means.

@MrBON Okay, don't hunt. Keep waiting until girls approach you. Problem solved.

"I hate" something means I don't really want the end result. You don't really want to get laid, probably because you're too much living in your comfort zone of porn and masturbation. Try no-fap. Maybe something will shift.

I'm not quite sure, but it seems reality could not exist otherwise.

@Username You're too demanding. She just woke up lol. @Someone here Thanks. I feel like a toilet lol.

And what is indifference?

And what is neutrality?

Don't overthink it. Just do it ✅

So what is ugliness?

@Someone here Contemplate this picture as an exercise. I know you love blondies lol.

Desire is true. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it.

@Mu_ Seems like my post was not very beautiful after all. But poor dick, what did it do to deserve this offence? Thanks for proving my point. I'll remove those objectively ugly comments.

My post was partly in response to Leo's post, which contained claims that are incorrect. You seem to have a wrong idea of how scientists are and how science works. Just because it doesn't conform to your beliefs does not justify you coming up with speculations for why it doesn't do so. In fact, it just shows how biased and identified you guys are with your beliefs. Scientists are more objective than you can ever be, because that's their job and they're judged and ranked according to how objective they are, but they work within a certain limited framework that does not allow all sorts of hocus pocus ideas, because there are other more important stuff to be researched instead. Science has a clear mission, which is to advance the human survival. I'm not interested in questioning the scientific framework here, rather I'm clarifying certain misconceptions that Leo is spreading about science. It's like a normal person questioning a neurosurgeon who is performing brain surgery. You don't have the qualifications to do so, because that's not your specialized field of work. There are experts in surgery who got their degrees by dedication and hard work and deep study for decades. By no means you should come up to a neurosurgeon and teach them how to perform brain surgery. That would be extremely foolish. Similarly, you shouldn't teach scientists how to do science unless you're a scientist yourself. In which case, you should know better that there's no tangible scientific evidence for the paranormal up to this moment. You might say: but science is being closed-minded because of yada yada yada, and I would agree. But you should understand that that's exactly what makes science science, because otherwise it wouldn't be science but rather something else that doesn't put out tangible material results as it does right now. You want to expand research to invest more in the paranormal, which can be extremely inefficient financially-wise. It would require a lot of money and it might not yield anything of value. It might be just a waste of time in the current time. Instead, capitols invest in researches that have high chances of success and profit. Don't confuse the materialist paradigm with the lack of integrity/open-mindedness that you're projecting onto scientists. Scientists are open to tangible results, for example, they have confirmed that meditation has actual benefits, such as reducing anxiety and prolonging the attention span, etc... So, clearly they have nothing against spirituality or the paranormal like you're suggesting. This guy you mentioned is a believer without any tangible evidence. Otherwise, let him bring forth his evidence. If it can prove itself correct, then nobody's gonna deny him that. In fact, he will be recognized and respected more for his breakthroughs. But since he can't provide evidence, he is considered a pseudo-scientist. Again, I'm not interested in deconstructing the metaphysics of science here, that's a topic for another day.

Why wouldn't she? Is having a boyfriend equals the end of the world? Now you can't make friends anymore?

Duuude! She has a boyfriend, and she was upfront about it from the beginning so that you don't get the wrong idea. She probably just thought you might be a nice person to be around.

Haha, nice! Zoom recontextualization. All the balls are actually of the same color.

What makes you think that she's looking for more than a friend?

I'd choose science over psychics anytime. It's not like scientists don't want the paranormal phenomenon to be real, it's just that it didn't prove itself real by the scientific standards that are applied to everything else in our modern understanding of reality. There's absolutely no reason for a scientist to be closed to paranormal phenomenon other than it actually being a delusion according to the established system. Think about it, why would anyone deny that reality could be more exciting? Studies and experiments have been done, and the results have been consistent that these things are pseudo-science, or at best, merely placebo. Why would a scientist who is absolutely objective with everything else be biased here? It doesn't make sense. Scientists can dismiss psychedelic experiences as delusions because of the subjective nature of the experiences, and therefore the possibility of them being prone to personal interpretations, which are considered biased and unscientific. On the other hand, people who doubt the integrity of scientific research have not been able to prove anything themselves. Otherwise, we would have seen at least a few examples, given the fact that free speech is encouraged. It's not like science is one evil person who is sitting on the top of the establishment fighting tooth and nail against the paranormal to preserve his beliefs. It's more likely that the people who claim the paranormal are themselves deluded or have no objective evidence for their claims. A well-respected scientist would be taken seriously if they could prove the paranormal. It's very suspicious that none of the highly respected scientists participates in such things, because it's very unlikely that all of them are simply closed-minded. At least a few of them have to be open-minded. Note: I'm not discussing the metaphysics of science here, and I agree that they should be questioned. I'm saying that within the current establishment, paranormal phenomenon are not scientific claims, and there's no reason to believe otherwise.