houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

I see plenty of this sort of nonsense with those claiming that Christians should be onboard with whatever progressive-globohomo agenda item they want to force on everyone, often with torturing the interpretation of the Bible. But this is an example of straight up making up context that was never there, which is far worse as it is easy to demonstrate how it is an obvious lie.

Saw the same thing in a pro-gay presentation claiming Jesus "affirmed a gay couple." Wrong!

Regardless of whether or not you are a Christian, you should at least understand my contention with his absolutely bogus statements about what happened in the Bible. This is supposed to support his premise that abortion is okay with God. Yes, the same God that tells his people not to commit murder is fine with abortion because liars like this want you to conform to the world rather than conform to God's teachings. Oh yeah, there is something in the Bible about that too: Romans 12:2

Sometimes the internet takes me down quite the rabbit holes. I found this particular video (not exactly current but who cares):

https://youtu.be/Oz378QPGLfc?t=101

At the timestamp, this "scholar" claims that the angel "asks" Mary if she would want to bear the Son of God, and it only happens because Mary says yes.

Read me Luke 1:26-38 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1:26-38&version=NIV) and tell me if this looks like the angel "asked" Mary. No, he told her it would happen.

So clearly this man is full of shit

Even I might not like life becoming more difficult, and I might even be among those who would get upset. But I may need to learn to deal with that. It matters not if I like it or not, but rather what will I do if I face a more difficult life. The only choice I have is to deal with the difficulty as best as I can.

I like to think I am adaptable, but a collapse of any severity will put that theory to the test.

That is indeed a worst case scenario, but even considering the downgrade in the standards of living will be something most people will not be able to swallow. All necessities being extremely expensive means less disposable income for things that people most certainly do not need. We are too used to comforts, and taking away those comforts will drive some to think it is the end of the world even if it is not.

If the US does full on collapse, I think it will shock most people living in the US. Yes, we have many bad signs deterioration, but most people still are living fairly comfortably in spite of the issues with inflation.

Food not being on grocery store shelves, electricity turned off, and gas not being at the pump are things most people are not going to be able to contemplate. For most people, that will mean death.

No, you are not going to meet some cute young thing on your flight to your destination. Your life is not a movie.

Anyone else who might look at you funny for dressing for comfort when you are already going through every other discomfort during travel is never going to see you again anyways. Why care about what they think?

So if your aversion to the idea of wearing sweatpants on a flight is because you fear others judging you for your choice in clothing, just forget about that silliness.

Here's a tip for making your experience flying in an airplane more comfortable: just wear sweatpants for the trip.

This was something I never thought up myself, but I saw a co-worker on a business trip doing this, and I realized the genius of it. Who are you trying to impress when you are flying? The pilot? The stewardesses? Your fellow passengers? That attractive woman you saw during a layover who was going to a different destination?

Wearing something comfortable just makes things easier.

There would be a lot less stress and anxiety in society overall if we stopped fighting against what nature intended. I specifically am referring to women and their general desire to have children who instead choose the career path and/or grad school path because they were told they needed to go out there and be accomplished.

Many of them do not even want to any of this and would rather be stay-at-home mothers. But apparently social stigma is stronger than biological urges. But only to a point.

Therefore, the male equivalent of a slut is not merely a man that is too willing to give out his commitment to women in terms of being willing to enter a relationship, but being too easy to give away his resources to women. The man that gives money to OnlyFans models is far more fitting for that equivalency. Like a slut giving out sex too easily, the man who gives up his finances to women too easily is the true equivalent to a slut.

Something occurred to me when the discussion of gatekeepers of sex came up on the "whatever" stream (not worth watching full through). The women were talking about "male sluts," showing that they do not understand the roles men and women play as gatekeepers. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. But what is "commitment" in this context really? It is not really about being devoted to one in a relationship, but more about committing one's resources.

Picture referenced in post:

I have a feeling this guy would not be a fan of NotJustBikes.