2 Kings 25:9 says Nebuchadnezzar *BURNED* the first temple
2,600 years later archaeologists discover *BURNED* wooden beams exactly where that temple stood and exactly from that era.
The Bible REALLY happened, y’all.
The real Jesus died on a real cross for the real you, and if you give Hin your life He can REALLY change it forever.
You have to understand: “the other side” is not arguing in good faith. They are using the conversation operationally to impose their frame, redirect you, force you onto the defensive, manufacture concessions, and shape your perception.
You are presenting evidence. They are managing you.
That is the asymmetry. Your “correct argument” cannot defeat a person or tactic whose purpose is not to answer you, but to manipulate you.
As a young girl I remember always being told,
“You can be whatever you want to be!!”
From an astronaut to a doctor, a lawyer, a vet, you could do it all. But there was always this pesky little condition: your dreams had to be big. They had to sound impressive.
Nobody ever said they wanted to be a mom, or a housekeeper, or a trash truck driver, or a waitress, or a dad, or a gardener, or a secretary, or anything common, normal, and ordinary.
You could be anything you wanted, so long as it was something grand.
You couldn’t dream of a simple life, of marriage, a home, and a handful of kids, because that was a “waste” of potential. That was “settling.”
So now we have an entire generation of people who think marriage, children and normal lives are failures, when in reality these are the single most important things most of us will ever have, or ever do.
These are the pillars of society, and yet they are the one dream we are told we shouldn’t have.
@GiffLasta@Fir3Li0n My answer to that is no. I have a very deep rooted hatred (might be too strong of a word) of myself. Deep down I feel defective and I dont know how to change that.
When asked by a reporter, President Trump delivered an emotional message to the families of the American service members killed by Iran.
REPORTER: “Sir, what is your [message] to the families, what will you say to them today?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “Well, all I’m gonna say is, we love you. We love your child and that’s what they are to them.”
“They’re their children. There’s no games, there’s no nothing. That’s their child.”
“All you can do is throw out your heart. Thank you. Thank you very much.”
@AsquareM35@NoContextHumans Maybe with the fish, but in my experience I cant est like a rabbit and expect to function at a normal level and not be hungry. Red meat is where its at.
The manosphere’s most effective recruiting tool is the discovery that adults did not tell boys the whole truth about women.
One reason young guys are drawn to the manosphere is that some of the information they find there is not really offered anywhere else. And some of it is directionally accurate.
One thing these guys will say is that women are trained from a young age to be aware of what men can be like. "Men only want one thing, you have to be careful around guys, etc." And so, once girls hit puberty, they have this ambient awareness that men have certain motives and that they should keep their guard up.
Boys, by contrast, are not always told the complete truth about what women can be like. They grow up thinking women are like Disney princesses who want nothing but kindness and generosity and empathy.
Then a boy enters high school and sees the kinds of guys many girls are actually drawn to. Often it is not the super nice guy. Sometimes it's the bully, or the jock, or the guy who seems dominant and socially confident.
If you are not prepared for that, and you are a naive teenage boy, the realization can send you in a very dark direction. You start thinking, “I have been lied to about women my whole life. What else have I been lied to about?” And from there, it is easy to conclude that there is an entire matrix of hidden truths you now need to see through and only the online influencers will show you the way.
RFK Jr. reveals what HHS found when they went looking for the 375,000 migrant kids Biden lost.
"It's a huge, huge tragedy."
"One guy pretended to be the parent of 42 children. We have no idea what happened to those kids."
"We're now finding them. We found about 137,000 of them, but a lot of them you just can't find. There was about 60 kids who were sent to one address. When we looked at that address, it was a container, a steel container in the middle of a parking lot."
"A lot of them were sent to work at slaughterhouses and picking fruits in the fields. They were slaves."
"So we stopped that. Now everybody who comes in has to validate the relationship. We DNA test them to make sure they're related to that kid. Nobody gets a kid unless we know that is the kid's parent or relative."
"It's a huge, huge tragedy. My agency [under Biden] was the single biggest child trafficker in the world."
@DividendMil Thats great but honestly you and other dividend gurus are always talking about getting in at the right time and then say you got in when it was half the price it is now, so what are the plebs supposed to do? Wait? Still a good time to buy?
What most bothers me about this take is that it implies a zero sum state for womens friendships with guys. A guy could be friends with her for ten solid years, but if he even shows a hint of attraction to her suddenly none of that shit mattered. Like, you might want there to be something said about her questioning the entire relationship over this, but if it's that easy for a woman to just drop a friendship than clearly she wasn't really a friend to begin with and her bond with any guy should be questioned as harshly as she questioned his to her.
This is like those situations where a woman cheats on her husband and than starts talking about "unconditional love" and how he must not have ever loved her when it took a huge betrayal for him to lose attraction, but clearly nothing at all to motivate her to cheat if she's that concerned about "unconditional love."
As the world's greatest expert on the female mind (prove me wrong or shut up) I have to chime in on this.
Long story short: Women have been mind raped into viewing male sexual interest with great suspicion, as something negative, and men, too, often avoid expressing their sexual nature as a consequence.
To expand, it's firstly a form of mate suppression, something that women do to each other to reduce their chances of successful reproduction.
Yes, male sexual attention can be dangerous (as can female sexual attention be to a man) because people whose entire blood supply has relocated to the nether regions often don't think or act rationally. It can involve a loss of control as the primal instincts take the helm, and this is true for both sexes.
But that same state of loss of control is also fetishized by both sexes. That's why pornography aimed at men is full of women in a state of "ahegao", of horny bliss, and why female smut is full of aggressively horny, animalistic male characters who do not care about the laws of men.
That is why the idea of the rapey man resonates with so many women, why it is so easy to convince so many women that all men will just about force themselves upon them if only given the opportunity - It is wishful thinking, a sex fantasy, rooted in the arousal pathway of seeing a partner taken over by lust.
The point where the child transitions into a woman will decide whether she learns to enjoy male sexual attention, or fears it. As shocking as it can be for maybe a 13-year-old girl to suddenly find herself with wide hips and boobs, and out of nowhere start receiving all that male sexual attention, many will quickly learn to lean into it, even to exploit it for her own gains.
The girls who don't get any quality sexual attention, the Andrea Dworkins of the world, may, as a coping strategy, decide that male sexual attention is the worst thing that can happen to a woman.
Of course, the women most "worried" about "sexual attention" happening to them, are the ones least likely to experience it. And they lack the cognizance to understand it as their own sex fantasy, their own wishful thinking, to see a sexual partner so consumed by lust that he turns into an animal, no longer responsive to intellectual verbal requests like "stop"
But women hate each other, so they exploit this (subconscious) desire by priming each other, in that such sexual desire expressed by a man is the worst thing that could happen to them, when ostensibly it is a pleasant, even empowering feeling to be desired, for most any woman.
"Stay away from boys they will hurt you" is however not effective gaslighting. Because any woman hearing such "advice" will already have spent considerable amount of time around "boys", including her own father, and not have been hurt or even lusted after. So instead the female mind, simple as it is, divvies the male population into two groups, the "sex-men" and the eunuchs.
The eunuchs are naturally safe to be around and never express sexual desire. The "sex-men" are "dangerous" but she will engage with them in times where she is horny herself. She has zero respect for the eunuchs, they only exist to serve her non-sexual whims. She needs help with homework or something heavy moved, she can call upon her eunuchs who, recognizing her superior status as a vagina-haver, willingly serve her for further gain.
The sex-men on the other hand, may be higher in status, or below herself. The homeless guy offering her an unsolicited dicking, obviously is below her in status. The guy who dumps her ass for a less annoying girl without hesitation, obviously is higher in status. So she is forced to constantly mess with any lover she takes to see if he is too low status to be with her, or if he dumps her. (Yes this ends with her dying alone)
These are both just men and the only real difference between a "sex-man" and a "eunuch" is in whether he chooses to express his sexual desires. Many men, having been brought up by women to never express such dangerous "rapey" sexual desires, choose not to. Perhaps they assume the woman would have to be profoundly retarded to believe that he truly has no sexual desires, when in his mind, instead, he demonstrates constant self-control and never outwardly expresses it.
And unfortunately, many women are profoundly retarded in this way, especially the ones who don't experience male sexual desire often. To those, a eunuch suddenly revealing himself to actually having been a "sex-man" all along, is some kind of great betrayal, as if he had disguised himself for such a long time.
If she had more experience with men and their sexual desires, this would not be a surprise. If instead of being gaslit by other women into the sex-man/eunuch dichotomy, she had been taught that all men are "sex-men", but are expected, under the threat of very brutal violence, to keep themselves under control around women, she wouldn't erroneously assume that there exists a separate category of eunuchs without any sexual desires.
And before we conclude now that women who complain about the "friend" suddenly being in "love" are summarily retarded, ugly, and horribly gaslit, there is one more component to the story.
The Westermarck effect is what's believed to keep siblings from fucking each other - They grow up in close proximity among each other before any of them become sexually mature enough to exhibit strong sexual behaviors. In other words, it's caused by extensive contact that does not turn sexual, does not turn arousing. The same thing happens essentially with adults who suppress their sexual desires in front of each other while still being in close proximity to each other. Eventually, the brain imprints on that person as "not a sexual option".
This is almost certainly what happens with "Friendzoned" opposite sex acquaintances, although the imprinting will be substantially weaker when it happens in adulthood. In essence, you are not "friendzoning" each other by refusing to ever express any sort of sexual behaviors, you are "brotherzoning" and "sisterzoning" each other. But assuming you aren't siblings, you should consciously not let that happen. It's a misfire of an otherwise adaptive mechanism that's supposed to keep you from banging your siblings. Because proximity breeds intimacy.
To keep that from happening, always express your sexual desires. There is culturally something low class associated with doing so - If you are of a higher class, you are expected to keep your sexual desires to yourself, as a signal of self-control. But there are better ways to signal self control than pretending to be a eunuch, or a dried up spinster. Neither is attractive to anyone.
tl;dr: Friendzoning or "Sisterzoning", is something the person being zoned does themselves, by suppressing their own sexual nature. Both men and women are culturally incentivized to not express their own sexual nature. Ugly, stupid, sexually inexperienced women are easily gaslit into believing male sexual nature is dangerous, whereas inexperienced men are gaslit into believing that female sexual nature is not.