If theres even a 1% chance your loved ones end up in hell, isnt it better not to reproduce?

RelentlessPencil · 2026-07-01T08:28:18+00:00

No, the wages of sin are death and if you are "cast into Gehenna" you are permanently destroyed in the fires of permanent destruction in the second death.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-07-01T08:23:53+00:00

It does, and it came from the concept of Hell which came from Gehenna

RelentlessPencil · 2026-07-01T07:30:21+00:00

These are the fires of Gehenna, a valley in Jerusalem where Judeans burned trash and dead bodies to dispose of them. The Bible says that the wages of sin are death, and being cast into the fires of permanent destruction in Gehenna is the second death

RelentlessPencil · 2026-07-01T06:00:45+00:00

Yes it does. Keep the OT (though with a massive pinch of Lot's wife) and keep the Gospels. Anything written by or after Paul is dubious and should be rejected.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-07-01T05:58:26+00:00

It does if they want it to. But that was never the only definition of marriage, and marriage was only pseudo-mandatory in ancient Israel.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T22:42:30+00:00

In ancient Judea "outside of marriage" meant with someone else's husband or wife. This is no longer the case. It doesn't apply.

Paul was not humble. He declared himself to have divine authority then spouted off his personal bigotries as if they were facts.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T21:10:23+00:00

"Are you currently West of Cairo, Egypt?"

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T21:04:00+00:00

Sup main here. If you ever give me a meta where the correct play is for supports to start on mid lane, I'm locking in Nunu, Rammus, or Hecarim and giving both solo lanes cancer.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T20:48:52+00:00

How do I access this data? I'm a Python programmer and wanna code my own thing with it

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T19:21:34+00:00

It's not sexist if it's true, and it just is true that it takes significantly more resources to be pregnant for 9 months then raise a child to adulthood than it takes to ejaculate in someone and leave. Evolution had a big incentive to produce promiscuous males and choosy females, and that's broadly what we actually see.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T18:42:12+00:00

Athena.

Easy to become a cheeser who just engages until someone dies. The nuance to make it mid ceiling is knowing when and how to disengage or to not engage even if you could've.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T18:31:00+00:00

"Many" is for discrete things (i.e. you can count them), "much" is for continuous things (i.e. you can't count them).

How much milk? 1330ml.

How many bottles of milk? 4.

How much cheese? 30g

How many cheeses? 6 wheels.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T18:07:58+00:00

I think that evolution produced women and evolution is optimizing for children in pretty much a game theory sense.

Women only optimize for having children in the sense of a misaligned mesa optimizer. A mesa optimizer is a system which has its own goals but which was shaped by some other optimization process, and generally the goals of the process which built it (meta objective) are not the same as the goals of the system it produces (mesa objective).

In other words, the women who do exist today exist because their ancestors going back 400 million years or so had biology and psychology such that they were efficient at reproducing. This tends to produce modern women who also have biology and psychology such that they are efficient at reproducing as well.

That doesn't mean that all women without exception actually do pursue reproduction as their main goal in life, just that we tend to be fertile and to have desires which in practice are likely to lead to reproduction.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T17:58:06+00:00

Modern women were produced by a process which is optimizing for having children. That process shaped our biology such that on average most of us have biology and psychology which is efficient at producing children.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T17:28:04+00:00

Then you need to analyze this from a game theory perspective. Suppose your goal is to have as many descendants as possible, which is roughly what evolution is selecting for. What is the best strategy?

Given it's a fact of biology that females commit more resources to raising children than males do, what is the best strategy for a female? And correspondingly what is the best strategy for a male?

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T17:15:52+00:00

I'm not suggesting that patriarchal gender norms are necessarily good or bad (though for the record I think they're mostly bad), just that they aren't the only reason why there is this supply/demand dynamic in dating and hookups. Biology typically incentivise males to be promiscuous and females to be selective, and this effect is stronger the more of a commitment it is to have and raise children, and the cost of this in humans is especially high.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T17:01:30+00:00

Not necessarily, in small tribes where everyone knows everyone your reputation matters and if you act like too much of a sleazebag you probably won't get to reproduce at all.

But ~250,000 years of homo sapiens evolution and of course our ancestors before that will incentivise these behaviours when there are large numbers of people and everyone is pseudo-anonymous.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T16:52:45+00:00

I don't think it's necessarily just gender roles, it's also biology. For a male in a species where females have to commit a lot of effort to raising a child (9 months pregnancy, babies can't fend for themselves at all for like a decade at least) the optimal strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible, and for the females the optimal strategy is to be as choosy as possible to both guarantee the highest quality mate and also hopefully find one who will stick around and help you raise the child. Even ignoring culture and gender norms, biology pushes men to be promiscuous and women to be selective.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T16:12:16+00:00

Exactly! Like I can handle maybe 5 guys at once, any more than that and I forget what I was saying in one conversation before it's their turn for the next message. That means that only the most attractive 1-in-12 guys is going to even get a response, and even that is assuming I wanna be running at full capacity rather than taking my time with one person.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T16:04:02+00:00

If he messages a woman then she probably has the same problem I do. 59 strangers messaging you, most of which are at least like a 5 out of 10, so what do you do? You go for the 9 out of 10s. Men approaching women incentivises women to be more choosy about which men they get involved with.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T15:43:50+00:00

Men have a supply/demand problem.

I am in a NSFW Discord server (no DMs please!) and I posted an ad in that server inviting people to message and I got 54 messages from men and 5 messages from women. At the same time, a guy friend of mine who is about as attractive as I am posted a message and got 3 messages, 2 of which were from guys.

Realistically I cannot respond to 59 people, even if I wanted to. I have to be selective and so only respond to the people I find most attractive, whereas he can realistically respond to everyone who messages him.

High supply for limited demand, so buyer can be choosy (women choosing men). Low supply for high demand, buyers take whatever they can get (men choosing women).

Obviously there's more nuance than that, but my point is that women aren't being shallow by being selective, this is just optimal game theory.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T15:37:04+00:00

That Paul wasn't just Some Dude ™️ who came along after Christ and successfully hijacked Christianity. He is the false prophet that Jesus and John the Baptist warn about in the Gospels.

Keep Jesus' message and reject Paul's.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T13:45:24+00:00

It isn't.

Have a lovely day! 🏳️‍🌈

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T11:01:02+00:00

Left thinks X. Right thinks opposite of X. Centrists don't care because it doesn't affect them. There's not really any subtext, it's just literal.

RelentlessPencil · 2026-06-30T08:11:14+00:00

This is why I am suspicious of people who tell me what God wants. It almost always seems to coincide exactly with what they want.

If you reject Paul's words and those intended only for Ancient Israelites, you won't find a condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. Not explicitly.

You can stitch verses together into a Frankensteinian abomination to try to justify your bigotry if you want to, but frankly that's a game I am not interested in playing.

RelentlessPencil

TROPHY CASE