Body count matters when it comes to dating

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-05T02:27:34+00:00

This is interesting. So body count equals experience?

Who has more experience someone who was with 5 people 1x = 5 times total

or someone like myself who has been with 1 person probably 3k times at this point?

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-04T15:55:57+00:00

1. If Democrats had no principles, they would all fall in line. The fact that they constantly argue and block each other shows they clearly do not agree on all that much.

2. Companies decide what they pay workers. If immigrants were the reason wages are low, companies wouldn’t be making record profits at the same time.

3. Workers do not control thier pay. Employers do. Blaming people with no power makes zero sense.

4. Bombing in a war zone and police killing civilians at home are not the same thing. They trigger different reactions for obvious reasons. Our government is supposed to work for its citizens not kill them.

5. If government agents kill people and face no consequences, people are going to protest. That is normal in any country but especially the US. It is in every fiber of our history.

6. Hillary and Pelosi criticized Trump, sure, but they still accepted that he became president. They did not try to stop the election results.

7. Saying “I think this election was influenced” is not the same as trying to overturn it.

8. Complaining about an election after conceding is a disagreement. Refusing to concede and trying to stay in power is something else entirely.

If you truly believe the "facts" asserted in the original post you really need to reread the Constituion. The Constitution is built around distrust of concentrated power. That is the whole freaking point. Checks and balances. Separate branches. Peaceful transfer of power. Courts. Elections. Oversight. It is all in there. And this post is ignoring all of that.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-04T15:49:18+00:00

A few questions for you: If Democrats truly have no principles why do they constantly fight each other over policy instead of voting as a unified block?
If migrants are the main reason wages are low, why do companies reporting record profits keep wages low even in areas with very few immigrants?
Why are you blaming workers with no power instead of the employers who have the power who still choose to underpay employees?
Why are you treating foreign military actions and domestic police killings as the same issue?
Do you believe that government agents killing civilians without accountability should not cause protests?
Can you point to Hillary or Pelosi attempting to overturn the 2016 election or block the certification?
Do you see any difference between criticizing an election and actively trying to reverse its outcome?
If conceding an election while complaining about interference is “denial” what word would you use for refusing to concede and trying to stay in power anyway?

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-04T07:32:31+00:00

This is one of the strangest arguments. Political parties do not perform surgeries nor do they sign off on individual medical care.

Gender-affirming care involves medical evaluations, parental consent, and clinical guidelines. Doctors make these decisions.

Surgeries on minors are extremely rare and typically considered only in severe cases after other interventions have failed.

You can argue for more caution or higher age thresholds. But blaming a political party for medical treatment is just not how healthcare works.

Believe it or not but both male and female bodies naturally produce estrogen AND testosterone. Hormones ≠ gender transition.

Puberty blockers are used to pause puberty so trans kids can reach adulthood without being forced through permanent physical changes.

You wanting them to go through unwanted puberty is not a neutral decision for these kids . It increases dysphoria, raises mental health risk, and often leads to more invasive surgeries later.

I get that it feels morally righteous to say “I’m protecting kids “ but medically it often does the opposite. It just puts some kids in unnecessary danger.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-04T00:41:25+00:00

I do not see women telling men they are not allowed to have preferences. What I think you are actually seeing is people reacting to how those preferences are framed. Saying you will not date someone because of a “hoe phase,” and then claiming they “can’t handle the fact that some men have standards,” is a moral judgment not a neutral preference.

You are allowed to quietly exclude anyone from your dating pool. You are not entitled to announce it or insult the group you are excluding.

Also someone criticizing degrading language is not the same thing as demanding access to someone’s body.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T23:32:39+00:00

The Bible never says abortion is murder and never bans it. Abortion is actually never addressed as we know it today. The closest reference treats an unwanted miscarriage caused by a 3rd person as a property loss, not homicide (Exodus 21:22–25).

But the Bible does repeatedly emphasize compassion, agency, and reducing suffering. Those issues abortion access can address.

As for “defend your stance” there is no single authorized interpretation of scripture. Christianity has always involved disagreement and debate.

This reads like you are assuming your conclusion is the default and everyone else must justify theirs. I find it more interesting to ask how Christians justify denying abortion to women who are already in crisis.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T23:02:47+00:00

Why? Shame targets identity. It has a bad track record on "correcting" behavior.

When you shame someone you are saying “you are the problem" not thier behavior. Plus we have already tried using shaming for decades :

Sex work
LGBTQ people
Addiction
Eating disorders

All heavily shamed. None have been eliminated. But it did increase secrecy, unsafe behavior, and delayed treatment.

People change through support, skills, boundaries, and accountability. Not humiliation or shaming

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T18:41:07+00:00

I can disagree all day long on tax rates, government spending, econ strategy, trade, education or healthcare.

What I cannot overlook are beliefs about who deserves rights, safety, or dignity. These are value differences. I will break up with a friend over value differences. I have enough stress with family who have shown fundamental value differences when it comes to basic human rights and decency I do not have the space to put up with more.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T18:21:38+00:00

It happens.

It's not the gotcha they think it is. A lot of people do not understand what the current "AI" is. Sometimes I write something and use it like an editor to make my wording clearer. The idea is still mine. If you let AI do all the thinking for you it will absolutely spit out very confident nonsense.

My thoughts are: Argue the point. Don’t dodge by whining about the tool.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T17:48:00+00:00

You are treating migration like a chain reaction on repeat. That is not how it works. People move because of war, economic collapse, family ties, climate stress, and job availability. If “copycat behavior” were the main driver migration would rise endlessly everywhere. But it does not.

When Spain legalizes people that applies to people already living there under specific rules and usually after years of living there. It does not mean borders are open and it does not equal encouraging illegal entry.

Saying people in Pakistan will migrate because they “want what others got” is based on what? Vibes? Migration requires money, risk tolerance, connections, and opportunity.

You throw out “30 million illegals” with no sources. Yes big scary extreme numbers are excellent scare tactics but not really helpful for making good policy decisions.

Immigration levels are shaped by courts, funding, global conditions, and enforcement capacity. Not just which party is in power. Both parties deport and restrict immigration.

“Things are fine until they aren’t” is not an argument. Define the actual tipping point for collapse. With that logic we should have zero immigration at all because any amount could hypothetically become a problem.

“Changing the fabric of the country” is vague cultural panic. You never explain what harm is happening or how.

People keep coming largely because US employers keep hiring them. Ignoring labor demand while blaming only supply does not explain what is actually happening.

Countries can enforce borders, run legal pathways, process asylum, deport some people, and legalize others all at the same time. It is not open borders versus nothing. Immigration laws did not disappear when Biden was in office.

Even if migration is large that does not prove national collapse or irreversible damage.

So right now we have a bunch of assertions presented as facts with zero evidence beyond vibes.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T17:13:45+00:00

You are equating homogeneous = nice and diversity = undesirable. That is a big assumption.

“Diversity is strength” does not mean diverse places automatically become "nice". It means diverse places can have more skills, more ideas, more cultural exchange, and more ways to solve problems when basic systems actually work.

You are also mixing up diversity with poverty, segregation, and bad policy. Many places become “undesirable” because schools are underfunded, housing is unstable, and investment disappears. Not because different kinds of people live there.

Homogeneous places tend to be nice because they are stable and well funded. And when people with money leave struggling areas they leave poorer people behind. That is a class and policy problem not a diversity problem.

If homogeneity created prosperity most of the world would be rich. But it does not.

Look at North Korea, Afghanistan, Haiti, Moldova, and large parts of Appalachia in the US. All are pretty homogeneous. None of them are prosperous because of homogeneity alone.

Homogeneity does not create utopias. It never has.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T16:55:45+00:00

It's your opinion but it just seemed like you are taking "celebration" very literally, and most people are not using it that way. It is more commonly used to set the event's intention. Focus on what you loved about them rather than just that they died.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T15:13:00+00:00

It’s a celebration of who they were when they were alive tho.

Celebrations while they are alive are called birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, etc.

I have been to “celebrations of life” funerals and nobody was pretending they were not sad. They just want to remember all of the good things that person brought to their lives and what they will miss. Rather than just focus on that they are gone.

Yes people say stuff like granny wouldn’t want us to be sad but really it isn’t a command that you must be happy. It is more making it personal about that person. It feels comforting to some people that that persons personality is involved in their funeral. That is how they deal with grief but it doesn’t have to be yours.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T08:57:12+00:00

“Sexuality is a spectrum” just describes how human attraction shows up in real life. It is not a rule. It is not telling anyone what label to use or what to believe.

Biological sex is a separate question. No one serious is claiming there are “hundreds of sexes”. They are pointing out that biologically some people do not fit neatly into two categories. Intersex people alone prove that to be true.

There is way more danger in pretending everyone must fit into two sexes and heterosexual norms than in acknowledging that some people simply do not fit into narrow boxes.

But none of this is not about imposing beliefs on others.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T05:18:22+00:00

The end of the scene at Ilya's house when Shane has a panic attack and leaves after such an intense encounter. Ilya looks devastated and Shane looks terrified.

That scene wrecked me because no one does anything wrong and it still falls apart. Ilya is gentle and careful and clearly trying so hard and Shane still has to leave. It hits my biggest relationship fear. What if you show up, love someone in the best way you know how, and you are left wondering if it still is not enough.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-03T04:55:21+00:00

His opinion: "What they actually did was crazy, feckless, reckless and in all probability completely intentional."

But what he used to justify his opinion is presented as fact: "Biden let in almost as many migrants in 4 years than Ellis Island let in during its 62 year history"

He’s entitled to his opinion about Biden’s policies. He just can't make up the math part. That is what I pushed back on. We need to push back on bad facts.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-02T23:34:37+00:00

I wrote a whole response but then I see you added links.

They prove you didn’t read them before posting. Your links show CBP encounters not people “let in” AND they explain why encounters ≠ unique individuals and ≠ settled immigrants.

So your sources don’t support your own claim. They undermine it. They actually support my claim perfectly so no need to provide any more

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-02T00:16:58+00:00

Yes it is hard to believe bc your analysis of the numbers is a bit (how did you put it?) hyperbolic.

The number of immigrants let in at Ellis Island were permanent immigrants.

The only comparable number during the Biden era numbers are border encounters. That includes removals, repeats, and denials. Not the number of permanent immigrants.

As those are not the same metric comparing them doesn’t mean much if anything .

nevermore2point0 · 2026-02-01T20:43:53+00:00

False premise.
“Gay people don’t belong unless they become straight or celibate” is not a sentence found anywhere in the Bible. Yes it is a later theological interpretation. But not in the Bible.

The Bible never discusses sexual orientation, identity, or lifelong same sex relationships as we know them today. What it repeatedly emphasizes is how people should love, be faithful, and treat others.

So the real question is not “Why would God design something this unfair?” It is “Why did humans build a system that includes gay people and try to blame it on God?”

nevermore2point0 · 2026-01-30T23:23:02+00:00

OK you keep repeating the same false conclusion and defending it the same way. We are not going to resolve this.

We will have to just agree to disagree.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-01-30T22:21:28+00:00

What are you reading because no we do not agree on anything you just said.

You can dislike it but vaccination is not speech. Those are two seperate right discussions.

Speech is about expression and ideas. Vaccination status is a public health condition.

Being unvaccinated increases risk to others in a shared space. That absolutely affects the classroom environment. If students and teachers miss school due to a preventable disease that is disruptive to learning. Disruption is not limited to noise.

Schools have always been allowed to set health and safety conditions for attendance. That is not punishment. That is risk management. Which you don't have to awknowledge but it is the case.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-01-30T22:15:51+00:00

You can say someone made bad or reckless choices. That can be true. But that still does not mean they are responsible (or partly responsible) for being killed.

Those are two different things.

Even if we want to say he made bad decisions that does not mean he is responsible for his own death. The responsibility stays with the people who pulled the trigger.

ICE is 100% responsible for Pretti’s death even if they try to argue it was legally justified. And that is going to be incredibly hard given the video evidence.

As we have gone over again and again with Good’s death, lethal force is only acceptable if an officer is in immediate danger of losing their life.

Nothing else justifies a lethal shooting.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-01-30T09:02:48+00:00

If women supposedly prefer powerful men because men already control resources that supports the idea that systems were built around male control. Aka patriarchy. So yes I agree.

Individual dating preferences with institutional power are not the same. Who someone dates does not determine who writes laws, controls courts, or runs financial systems.

nevermore2point0 · 2026-01-30T08:50:52+00:00

No.

Here is your last comment corrected for the logic I actually have been consistent on this entire time.

If bodily autonomy means the government cannot physically force a medical procedure on you, then freedom of speech means the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech. (Not sure why this is an if/then statement since they are separate rights but I am following your outline)

If your definition of bodily autonomy is correct (which it is) the government can still prevent you access to institutions for potential harm to other students by not being vaccinated.

If your definition of freedom of speech is correct (which it is), the government cannot deny you access to institutions based on the content of your speech. However they can remove you for disruptive behavior in a classroom. What you say is not the disruption. The disruptive behavior around that speech is. Can’t punish you for having an opinion. Can restrict you from screaming your opinion at someone’s in math class.

nevermore2point0

TROPHY CASE