bebotalk

She's black, I believe.

Wisdom is subject to various categories and contexts. If it means deep insight, then this can apply in various contexts.

I don't see why it's the US's problem. If anything, it's just a holdover of a petty dispute that ended decades ago. Taiwan and the PRC should come to some compromise. Maybe share military resources or be like a mini-Chinese EU where they have a shared trade policy or something.

Being sex-positive is fine. BUt this also means that people don't have to be sex-positive or retain traditional views on sexuality. Trying to "liberate" them is kind of cringe.

It's supposedly due to the increased melanin in non-white peoples. However, I find that due to better healthcare, people of all races look better as they age these days.

Are spiritual people more inclined to not accept others' views, or perspectives? Few if any people are completely closed or open-minded, however spiritual people often get overly confident in the veracity of their views. It seems having a different standpoint is offensive to them. Humanity is offensive to them, seemingly.

A rule of thumb can be: - is it valid? - if it's valid, should one care? - if it's valid, who is dispensing this and it what context? - if it's invalid, one can ignore it.

if people are more conservative, then it's their right to be so. it's not about "changing" them to be more liberal or open.

I don't understand. This seems like some subjective view your temple taught you. There are different thoughts and cognition out there.

People are not responsible to you with their thoughts or beliefs. It seems many spiritual people believe this. why? it's baseless. did their god or spirit tell them this? As most spiritual people are like this, then it means they are not good/nice people and should not be associated with. I assume you'll get your temple to "sort me out" merely for disagreeing with you. looooool.

Wisdom is relative.

I didn't say I was offended.

I'm entitled to my opinion on your or the OP's views. If that bothers you, then you're not as "adjusted mentally" as you claim or cite.

So if high school teachers fuck students, does this make all teaching bad or lacking too? There are bad actors in every profession. And yes, the law imho at least is morally neutral. it's on individual lawyers if they openly flout their practcing ethics.

I think it's possible. Some women might be conditioned societally or via experience to via specific men in this manner.

I said your analogy is dumb. You're also obtuse.

Most instances of sex are not reproductive, even in relationships or marriages. The two are not the same imho.

It's naive to say AI has no potential issues. Yes, it can have benefits. But then it does have the potential drawbacks, so we need as a species really to ponder how we deploy it.

that's your belief, but not universal.

Not all sex is about pleasure. Many schools of thought, especially religious, teach sex for pleasure is wrong. Either way, sex is a lesser-order need at best. I don't see how that's not the case. Needs are hierarchal in terms of vitality for life.

This is why incels are mocked. You cannot argue, you use odd analogies and comparisons and you cannot connect nor reason with people. You don't know how to persuade. Imagine Gandhi saying "India should be independent so we can kill all British mothers and children". Yep, that would have encouraged the British to end the Raj...

https://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/#:~:text=There is little problem defending,short a sentence as possible. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e271bc74-46b8-42e9-9ad9-bed740d8fb70#:~:text=A lawyer must provide a,“beyond a reasonable doubt”. People who hate lawyers often just see things in shallow terms. Or it's just a colloquial belief that's pretty limited.

if some want kids, fine. if others don't, fine. There are few things that prescriptively work for all.

Bar food and water, few things are true absolute human needs. One hears all of these stories of monks or priests that live in the desert or woods for decades with little to no ill-effects. So whilst people have a need for companionship, it's not as elementary as food or water. Maslow spoke of a hierarchy of needs, and he was right. Sex isn't high on the hierarchy, imho.

I don't believe anybody truly needs sex. Some may have more of a physiological attachment to it, but that's not universal. There are some who would enjoy being hermits in forest. For others, that's Hell on Earth. But all of these people need food and water. Sex is a lesser order human need at best. It's more of an innate desire than a true need. As for innovation and inventions, lots of noted scientists have been celibate. People create things for a variety of reasons, not just to get pussy.