Schizophonia

@Judy2 You ask for help from the guy at the tax office counter. You tell him you don't understand anything lol; between the young or worse the old people and the migrants who are in the west, they are used to it

@AION I know plenty of girls (and pretty ones) who only want guys who are particularly nice. The more “lazy” a girl is/the more she is not interested in anything, the more she will give in to a coercive person.

No because the desire to have a relationship, to cuddle and kiss blablabla has nothing to do with the desire to rape, which is a sadistic delirium. Just because both involve the body doesn't mean that a "lack" of one will cause a lack of the other. If you really wanted sex there are escort girls.

@Emerald The people who want to rape/kill you because you are attractive are an extreme minority like Ted Bundy. Incels are no more likely to be rapists than anyone else; killing and raping are matters of sociopathy.

I love pork fat with bread and raw garic

This is the political state of France in 2012.

@Alexop I didn't know you actually have Swedish nationality now. I'd like to live in Sweden one day it's a cool country I enjoyed my road trip there. There is an atavistic attraction to this atmosphere.

40mg on empty stomach or nothing It mess up one's hair

Just because a woman is less attractive doesn't mean she is any less likely to be a potential victim of a sexual predator. On the contrary an attractive woman is more likely to attain a higher social status and when you have a higher status you are better protected against predators. The fact is that when you are more attractive whether man or woman you have a better chance of reproducing and reproducing with people who are themselves and more attractive. It is true that what is considered an advantage and thus ultimately attractive depends on the environment; however behind this "left-wing relativistic post-Darwinism" there is also a coping mechanism, a shadow. That is what bothered me and probably bothers her and makes her metaphor shaky, as it is forced in order to address a psychical contradiction; believe.

It’s good but never deep enough. Objectively the LSD is a cut above I’m keeping that one.

Each time the test says ENTJ but I have doubts

China is doing well that’s why it can afford to have a polished president; not the opposite (or rather both are true; to be non dualist ) American elites and the middle class feel threatened and perceive themselves as losing status; consequently they will vote for someone who whether consciously or unconsciously (which is what Leo meant by "vibe" when trying to explain Trump's election) acts in their interests. Trump’s character is well-suited to this situation of decline: he is uninhibited and capable of pursuing an imperialist policy. Leo and others here see Trump simply as a "lunatic" (I’m not saying whether that’s true or false; I’m moving past that) because you aren't enough part of enough of the collective subjets that favored Trump to understand the necessity of such individuals for their agenda. For the average family man to the Silicon Valley elite, passing to the Israeli/Jewish diaspora, Trump’s character is usefull, relevant to those people, relevance enough to propel him to power. Nothing happens by chance; randomness is an illusion. History is dialectical, a configuration of power dynamics between collective actors and if you limit yourself to viewing things through the lens of individual subjects, your worldview will be blurred and distorted. You will simply dismiss people as "stupid," "erratic," or what have you, without ever understanding why these "morons" keep coming back again and again. Trump's plan is a two-step process : 1) Maintaining the petrodollar by bringing key oil producers such as Venezuela or Iran into the fold. Essentially the United States particularly in the post-Cold War era has been the world's leading industrial power. It was able to pressure various oil producers and buyers (threatening for exemple to withhold Boeing aircraft, US manufactured goods, access to Visa/Mastercard banking networks; anything was possible) to mandate the dollar as the currency for trade. This boosted the dollar's value allowing the US to import goods and services from other countries much more cheaply, or alternatively to devalue the dollar here and there by running the printing presses. This devaluation reduced the burden of public debt: if your currency is worth less, everything automatically becomes more expensive but the debt (and the interest) is not inflation-indexed; thus it loses value, "weight"; i's a way to cheat the system. The issue is that the United States is now competing, naturally, with Europe (which has rebuilt itself since World War II), and above all with China as well as increasingly with emerging powers like India and perhaps one day Indonesia, Russia, and so on. This means that now that China produces its own aircraft, phones, microchips, and the like, it is becoming increasingly tempting for certain oil-producing nations for specific geopolitical or ideological reasons to take the risk to stop selling their oil in dollars and switch to the yuan (or the euro, or any other currency, for that matter), because in this instance even if the United States threatens you and carries out those trade threats, you can now still trade with competitors. You can even go so far as to threaten the United States with this kind of customer-base leverage. That’s exactly what Emmanuel fucking Macron did when he showed up at Davos in "Top Gun" mode: he tacitly invited China to step in as a trade partner. Trump once threatened to slap tariffs on French champagne and wine imports, but the issue as Macron knows is that this industry is becoming less and less dependent on American customers; the product can now be sold to the Chinese, even if it means making less money in a worst-case scenario. And as time goes on as China and other emerging nations grow wealthier, their capacity to buy champagne will increase, while the U.S. will lose its ability to exert pressure through its consumer base. Such a move so (to stock buying things in dollar especially petrolium) would lead to a depreciation of the dollar, resulting in a significant loss of American purchasing power abroad and by extension a general decline in purchasing power. 2) Bring capital back to the United States. That is the purpose of these tariffs and protectionism in general, It isn't just an idea of Trump he was advised to do this. Given that the balance of trade and capital flows are increasingly favoring competitors he is attempting to reindustrialize the United States and protect the dollar by restricting product imports. The logic is that if fewer goods are imported (from Canada for example), certain sectors will increase production thereby significantly bolstering the value of the dollar. The other strategy is massive investment in AI. The United States is investing heavily in AI and data centers less out of kindness and to cure Uncle Jaco’s anal cancert han to massively and drastically ramp up production/production-cost ratio. Oil as i described it before is the primary factor but it is not the only product that bolsters American soft power and purchasing power; printed circuit boards and computer products in general play a similar role. This is a key reason why the United States wants to protect Taiwan from being absorbed by China. Taiwan is the world's largest supplier of printed circuit boards; if it were to be absorbed by mainland China an entire sector vital to soft power would fall under Chinese control, a sector whose products would btw then likely be sold in yuan or other currencies specifically to spite the United States, creating the same problem as with oil. You are right to suggest that the project looks like a trap and doesn't seem to work. It will be a make-or-break situation, depending on the motivation of the various stakeholders.All I mean is that from a historical-materialist perspective it was to be expected.

Lol in this last case “predator" means the possibility of reproduction, not the possibility of being killed and prevented from reproducing. That's the most dishonest reasoning I've ever seen.

Indeed my Nemra Saturday is Shabbat in Jewish tradition. This seems logical given Armenia's proximity to the Near East. Armenian must have borrowed from ancient Semitic languages such as Aramaic or even directly from Hebrew.

@Leo Gura @Razard86 @Breakingthewall @Jowblob Are you conscious enough now to navigate into infinity ? I got into non-duality through the Law of Attraction, because I’m an insecure nice little boy lost in samsara who wants money, who wants love to do kisses and cuddles 🐇❤️ , and wants to avoid getting ass cancer. Naturally I initially understood infinity in a linear way, through the prism of the illusion of time as if life were a sequence of images from a projector, selected from an infinite array that existed "elsewhere." Then I realized that time and that notion of having "something" here and infinity "elsewhere" (essentially the duality of "something" versus "everything/nothing" in general) were illusions. I saw that to move beyond all that the reality is actually that "everything" is already present here and now. Here and now, and all the time. We should therefore be able to "zoom out" from the ego to visit other realities. They are meant to be directly accessible without "dying" or doing anything in particular since once again this is independent of the ego. Accessible and actually accessed because once again everything is already here right now; just in absolute denial of this ego; this ego Valentin pretends not "seeing" infinity on "actualized". I couldn't say for the moment whether we become aware of a different reality at every instant—as advanced Law of Attraction coaches often suggest, for example—or if, rather, every point within the infinite evolves simultaneously within its own infinity. An infinity within an infinity within an infinity, and so on, of "consciousness nodes." I become less relevant from that point on.

He does his best to preserve American interests and in particular those of his social class; collective subjects that have allowed him to have power. That's why the older he gets the stranger he seems; he's simply adapting more or less consciously or unconsciously to what's expected of him for his survival. The reason Obama came before was that it was in the United States' interest to have someone policed, now that the United States is gradually threatened with decline someone who is necessarily more belligerent appears and is propelled to power. The problem isn't Trump; he's just some random guy. The problem is the American political and social system, which generates certain collective issues with its social conditions, a balance of power between these collective issues, and the consequences of these struggles, such as imperialism.

You're an idealist Trump is simply doing what the system allowed him to be re-elected for which is to maintain American hegemony. It's necessary to maintain the petrodollar by taking control of Venezuela and then Iran, and trying to redirect capital back to the United States through this infamous trade war because the United States is no longer a producing nation, is heavily indebted, and a significant portion of that debt is being held by the Chinese.

I see. It's cool.

Are you French speaker

The choice tacitly presented was between the consistent option of sparing both animals and criminals, and that of sparing no one (in absolute terms—though there are nuances, of course). I chose the second option; it is a choice that is hard to debate because at its core it essentially comes down to a matter of personal preference.

Bukele has fixed his country's security situation through zero tolerance.

Once again ethic is purely subjective; it's what you have absorbed from your upbringing, and it is so deeply ingrained in the subconscious that you are convinced it has an objective dimension. But it isn't because otherwise, where would you find it? In the clouds, written in big letters between two constellations? No it’s just a story in your head. I am in favor of the death penalty because it would help relieve prison overcrowding and prevent taxpayers from paying to support murderers. No because i dont care about killing a criminal or killing an animal to eat it and I have no desire to worry about it; that's not in my nature and it would be emasculating. Yes of course; because once again "fine" is simply an autorisation from your superego which you objectify out of a lack of awareness. Slavery used to be considered normal, then with the evolution of the means of production it became obsolete and even dangerous because slaves tended to kill their owners and put their heads on pikes if they weren't treated well enough. Centuries later, these reasons have permeated the collective unconscious and by extension your own so if you are asked why slavery doesn't exist, you will talk about "ethics." Humans have a particular need for one another so cannibalism is rare, though it is still considered normal in certain tribe just as in the Far East cats and dogs are viewed less as pets and more as animals to be eaten. Yes. Once again it’s nothing compared to plenty of other things in life; you are projecting your lack of resilience. Vegans tend to be prone to depression and are therefore more likely to conclude (project) that the lives of farm animals are not worth living.

I prefer to express myself the way I want even if fewer people understand.

The movement and the ioded taste are entertaining.

Cannibalism is part of the human experience, but humans did not evolve to be docile and thus tend to rebel. Consequently most human societies have agreed dating back as far as the Paleolithic era to abstain from cannibalism and even later slavery, except under extreme circumstances. Ethics is not objective; it is the unconscious internalization of power dynamics. Yes we use animals to produce milk, meat, and eggs, but in exchange they live safe lives. We all inhabit a binary, dualistic, and limited world, yet we don't go committing suicide over it. Consuming animal products is ethically positive provided the animals are treated well above a certain standard. A vegan can still make ethically terrible choices, such as being an executive who exploits employees or buying manufactured goods produced under lousy conditions. No cows aren't raped; a rod containing sperm is inserted into the vulva to fertilize them. It takes just a few seconds. It is a constraint yes but so what? Life is full of constraints; does that make reproducing in this world unethical