Whitney Edwards

@Sidra khan dealing with peeps who don't know how to mind their own business

Hehe count me.

Not necessarily. If two people love each other, nothing should hold them back. Only if they really love.

Can you explain this?

Shouldn't love come from the heart?

I never understood how self respect had anything to do with it.

I've known a few girls who have dated broke men. They aren't very stage orange. But of course they have self respect. I don't know why respect is associated with being broke.

Thank you Bunny. You're a cool person in real life.

@DrugsBunny why do you insult others though?

You're confusing what Leo is saying. What Leo is saying is that if she is not attracted to you then you on the bad side of the red line. You're friendzoned. Let's say this zone is a triangle. So you're in the triangle now. If she filters a guy as attractive, he will be on the good side of the red line, let's say that zone is a circle. But this circle will have two layers - one player and the other boyfriend. If she sees you attractive enough but not boyfriend material then she would want a one time and then never look back. If she sees there's a chance for intimacy, she might want you as her boyfriend and more. She will use her guy friend for regular talk, he will never get intimacy from her, that area is reserved for the boyfriend, if she is not fully opening to her boyfriend, it's an emotionally abusive relationship most likely and toxic and she is probably looking for confirmation through her guy friends, but you can't call this intimate talk, it's like her confession to make sense of her ongoing relationship. If it's a healthy relationship she will not find the need to talk to her guy friends about it and she will be more open to her boyfriend. I did not see where the transactional thing came. The only thing to know is that no matter what you can't enjoy intimacy with her if you are friendzoned, and relationship talk is waste of your time ideally and you should not do it too much, of course you can always do it as a friend but if you have a girlfriend then probably avoid being her vent partner because there isn't much for you in it unless you are deriving equal value in being friends with her. Hope this clears up your confusion.

That's what we call culture. Culture differs from place to place depending on people. You might as well ask why Russia has dictatorship.

Feminism in the US is anti-family anti-man. Feminism in other first world countries focus on equal rights.

I don't think most mass shooters had a drinking problem. I think an inverse correlation exists between guns and alcohol. People who get drunk do get violent but only short term resulting into club brawl fights. In fact drinking causes much less violence long term since it inhibits executive functions and most people who drink are scarcely able to handle themselves let alone carry out a shooting that needs measurable levels of alertness. With drinking, there can be a massive increase in drunk driving fatalities and domestic violence but not mass shootings. Drinking inhibits aggression. Most regular drinkers aren't known to commit serious crimes because they lack coordination and agility. Regarding the glorification of guns, this is a historical thing and every country has a history that has uniquely shaped itself into existence. There is one crucial difference. Slave trade was much more common and widespread in the US than in Australia or Europe. There's a distinct slave history in the US. This says that the general culture was more hostile than other places. The toxic family culture in part due to feminism, erosion of church values, these values are still intact in other countries. If you replace a church with a club, things are going to be a bit shady.

Europe and US are very different. Europe is a conglomerate of different countries and cultures. Europe is more homogeneous racially. Most people in Europe don't have guns. There's a fallout of the wild west culture in the US that has always lingered around. We don't see glorification of guns in Europe. If you take a single country from Europe, it's nowhere close to US in size. Canada, Europe and Australia don't have toxic social family culture, they are way more conservative, with a relatively smaller distribution of guns. Historically America has always been glorifying guns. Mental health issues generally have a root in family, social structure, drug usage and food. All these have been perversely exploited by different industries for profit. For example, American food is known for junk, toxic chemical buildup, drugs are distributed irrationally. The rate of drug consumption itself is extremely high, you can look into opiate and cocaine and the recent fentanyl crisis. Homelessness is a big issue. Most Mass shooters come from low income groups. Crime is normalized to some extent. When you grow up in environments of crime, violence, drugs, and toxic food, it's easy to see how it all creates a volatile mix.

@Brandon Nankivell Aya is the divine goddess.

Canada is uniquely advantaged in that it does not have a mental health crisis on the same level as the US. Canada has a much smaller population and not an extreme political racial social divide. Also I don't think guns are ubiquitous in Canada. US has a systemic gun problem. Top it up with mental health issues, lack of social support and abuse of drugs, you'll get a gun crisis. Grassroots solution - fix mental health, fix family system. Oh Yea I forgot that. Canada does not have an extremely high divorce rate with family dysfunction whereas family values in the US are in the dumpster. Family systems in Canada are conservative, at least in comparison to the US. So the grassroots solution - fix mental health, fix family system, better security and better regulation on safety checks, protocols, licenses are given without proper background verification, that won't work. Stringent verification.

We need a mental health check. Until that is left unresolved, we'll keep suffering the same fate. There's a mental health epidemic.

Commit to a girl because you genuinely want to be her boyfriend and not just wanting to get laid. There's a special honor in being a boyfriend. Regarding friendzone, she will friendzone you if you aren't attractive enough. Accept it. If you want things to change, provide her more value.

54 (fear) + 60 (avoidance) = 114 It's not that I didn't know.

To never take yourself too seriously.

The best ever.

This is getting a bit annoying. I'm having a neutral position on this matter until stronger credible proof is shown. You should seriously check your bias. It's pissing me off.

@Girzo when it came to the actual nitty gritty, you backed off. Haha. Smart. My experiment design is cool. You simply don't have the means to do it. Now you say "the mushrooms are probably bunk," it's changed to probably after I challenged you hardcore. See this is the problem with online conspiracy theories, there isn't serious credibility to such claims. You can't call someone/something an outright scam if you can't prove it outright. Not so long ago you accused me of being a church marketer. I'm completely chill. I'm only saying that you have nothing to objectively prove your claims. It's farcical. I'm not wanting to be salty with you. I respect your opinion so far, yet I simply wish to keep the discussion good faith and as objective as possible.

@Girzo I only care about placing my belief into something either based on experience (which I believe is a bit mushy indeed) or based on verifiable credible proof. In your case, make yourself believable. I would expect this from you - a triple test. I need you to show me 3 samples. First sample should be sugar. Second sample should be actual psilomethoxin. Third sample should be the luxury mushroom from the church. Now you need to have something similar to a litmus test. It should be a clear cut indicator of the absence or presence of psilomethoxin. If the second sample gives the green signal and the other two samples don't, I will believe everything you say. Do you have such a report with you? If you can't produce what I demanded, I won't believe you. Till then no talk.

In a way, you're right, the church should ideally do so. Yet they don't. But it shouldn't be hard for you to do it if you care too much about the truth. It would be awesome if you actually proved it doesn't contain psilomethoxin instead of doing armchair speculation. In this sense you're no different than the church. It's he said she said with your rhetoric. If they say (since I didn't check their website and I don't bother to) it contains psilomethoxin and you say it doesn't, it really points to nothing other than jibber jabber. So the burden of proof lies on both parties - here it's you and the church. Why should I take your word for it when you don't even have a sample and a test report in your hand? If this was played out in court and I were the judge, you be asked to produce proof as plaintiff. There is a crucial problem here. Ideally in a clinical trial setting this is possible. You're holding vials with labels. If I remove those labels, your experiment is fucked up. Try to think of non scientific everyday settings. If someone is experiencing psilomethoxin when they are dosed with psilocybin, they don't know that it's normal mushroom. Neither do others around them. We're not always carrying testing kits around. So you can test a placebo in ideal conditions, that is a lab. But you can't test a placebo in everyday normal human living conditions because you don't know what something contains. If you care about the truth, like technicals and all the jazz, then you should do rigorous tests with detailed laboratory reports and much more like samples with actual psilomethoxin and how it shows up in tests. All you're doing is speculating and that's why what you say cannot be taken too seriously as it lacks substance. It's banter.