It's not so unattainable, at around 350 a pound even a minimum wage earner earns a couple of bars a week.
The average superannuation package comes in at around a million. On average people earn roughly 3 mil through a working life.

The glee about gold digging is mostly glamour. It's a form of delusion.

Perhaps what you desire is someone who is pragmatic about an economic local system, and is easily independent when it is the right thing to do only because it is the right thing to do.

I mean ultimately you starve in a gutter if you can't be realistic about economics, and nobody is ever truly independent of all other human contact and symbiosis without going insane and becoming dangerous.
So it's got to be all about measures and proportions.

I don't tend to get along with people that are too materialistic, especially where they place materialism ahead of social conscience.
At the same time, I find many people whom claim they are "strongly independent" are in fact simply narcissists, which amounts to the same problem. They put their egos and reactionary whimsy ahead of any social conscience.

I don't think there's a simple rule that makes a good person. What I respect is any earnest work in progress, given if they don't have any particularly bad or dangerous routine behaviour.

The cool thing about good people is they actually really are, and I like being around them. I know where the lines are myself, so I'm not concerned about concise presentation. It's what you do that matters, or what you would do that I'm likely to predict and deal with.

See now this is the thing which just astounds me with its unilateral ignorance. Sweeping generalizations do not work with biblical texts, it simply turns a true statement into a ridiculous lie.

Paul did not say christians can't marry or date non christians at all, he's not even remotely talking about any such thing in Corinthians.
It is entirely a misrepresentation to assert broad rulership based upon contextual statements, it's like hearing a monarch say "what a beautifully sunny morning" and then claim anyone who ever says any morning is not not beautifully sunny even if it is raining and cold, is to be imprisoned for sedition or put to death for treason. That's the kind of ignorance it is.

Paul wrote a very specific letter to a specific church in Corinth. He told them to keep faith and don't be corrupted by politics or social disarray.
He goes on to summarize Isaiah and Ezekiel to the Corinthian clergy, a statement of context. The passages he references in particular are where,

Isaiah is using a specific context to those Isralites deported by Nebudchanezzar under Assyrian rule. He tells them to hold their faith, be jubilant, cherish the memory of home and they will be redeemed. He says faith is universal, others respect it and they will become their own redeemers just as others will redeem them. He says remain faithful and ritually cleansed when you hold the spirit of yahweh and don't be corrupted, don't be impatient, when the time is right you can go home and it will be as you never left.

And Ezekiel, a prophet among those exiled in Babylon by Nebudchanezzar. He characterises the day of return to Israel, likening the exile to the egyptian exodus generations earlier. He says that whilst the jewish faith will lead all their people out of exile, like before there will be many wayward which will be purged once free and not allowed to enter the Israel of their fathers. He says those whom lose faith lose home.


Now what Paul isn't talking about is "become bigoted and racist because that's most christian to do."


edit to add, and by the way, just for reference, in Genesis it states categorically that jewish women can marry foreigners and their children are not only recognized as full hebrew but they also retain all foreign title and inheritance they may have, including any desire to identify with both cultures.
Paul does not challenge this law in Corinthians.

love is a gift, not a possession, so you can't love someone unless they love you.

ie. to love someone who doesn't love you is to love being treated badly. That's not love, it's idolitry, narcissism, it's lots of things that aren't love. It's a pretty nasty lesson to put yourself through if you have to learn it the hard way.

The "futuristic technology" on star trek in the 70s, the flip phone and handheld video conferencing, that was as amazing to contemplate within my own childhood memory as aircars and nuclear powered planes...or hybrid cars and affordable sports sedans pumping out 300 kilowatts at 28mpg and purring like a kitten in traffic. Simply a wireless comms headset used by computer geeks today was outlandish futurism back then, the best you could replicate that worked would weigh 2kg, have no usable range cordless and just give static everytime anything remotely electrical or magnetic passed by.

These things seemed like they'd arrive centuries in the future of mass produced technologies, not a mere 30 years. Go back further and it was building sized mainframes for the capability of a current iPhone, a modern tablet is beyond what was even achievable prior to about 1968 in any sense, you couldn't match the processing power of a modern gaming desktop until the 80s and it'd still take a room sized mainframe.

Everything was valve and vacuum, solid state was still the latest thing. That means a fuel injection system for a car would weigh as much as the engine and be about as complex, it was visibly mechanical systems that pioneered that road and it was mass produced digital technology that revolutionised it and created the modern automotive engine as well as the computer revolution and a fighter jet that could actually hit another fighter jet reliably with a missile (not until the mid-80s in point of fact and still not very reliable until the 90s, still easily jammed until just recently, military technology is confused by propaganda: it's never as good as claimed).

You could predict these things, because it was the way technology was headed and the groundwork was actively being laid, but nobody could've expected it to arrive within mere decades, it seemed such an advanced comparison to imagine, that it seemed centuries away before being mass produced and afforded by the common worker.

Other than that, international politics hasn't changed, but domestic legislation is still undergoing periodic and linear reforms, slowly average standards of living are being raised in some areas, found wanting in others and around that goes again, minority groups are becoming better represented, others disenfranchised so that goes around again.

One main difference is everything has become more generally accessible now. Everything, from organic produce to information sharing, to domestic and world travel, a lot of it is probably based upon the raising of the technological bar and its accessibility. Individuals are becoming far more empowered simply because there's no real way to stop them and doing so is accessible due to readily available technology.

So in ye olde times if you kept hearing jerks yelling stupid political slogans and wondered if the whole world was crazy so you kept quiet; well nowadays you go on the web and find that jerks are actually in the minority and so you don't have to keep quiet at all, but can rest easy and make them irrelevent instead of powerful.
In that way, although the only true social evolution without speciation is by proxy, that proxy is indeed accessible technology.

Today, I think people are far more socially empowered than they were in the 60s, well beyond the capacity of public demonstration or music festivals can achieve. Primary schoolers can look up advanced theoretical astrophysics if they feel like it, go to school the next day and just absolutely blow the entire classroom away. The door on individual potential is definitely wider today, although that potential was always there. People don't really change unless the next hominid species replaces us and has a different physical brain structure.

The game of popular religion and evangelists is using etymology against you. Using ancient words you haven't looked up as a means to control you by inferrence using something you don't know about in colloquial.

Simply looking up etymology is the best way to maintain independent thought.

Sin originally means "a truth", which was changed through translation along the ages by some church leaders with political agendas to later mean "a guilt".

That's actually why the higher church authorities within eg. the Catholic Church have the power to absolve sins. It's not because they can undo anything bad that you've done, it's because sin is just a truth, not a guilt.

Is love a truth? Yes. Is it a guilt? Circumstantially, but because sin is just a truth, it can be absolved if you're guilty about it. You don't really need a Catholic priest, their job is just to help you understand, so setting about understanding by yourself is even better and does the same job.

All fictional time travelling theories are based on a euclidean universe and not 4th dimensional spacetime. Most scifi is newtonian/euclidean and not relativistic.

You can't navigate time in relativity. Its forward motion is a physical dimension but it is diluted by mass-energy topography and velocity vectors. All motion is time travel and also space warping.
A time machine to navigate time however is like trying to draw a one-dimensional object. You need all four dimensions just to exist. Any break in any of them cancels all existence everywhere.

Women whom collectivise men as a grouping with common traits are being arrogant and dismissive.

Try some empathy in your life. What is a condition where you would blow off a date with someone after it is made? Don't be arrogant and dismissive and say "I'd never do that" because it's a vain lie. Find a reason that you would.

Say, just after someone set a date with you they punched an old lady in the face for no reason then swore at you viciously, also for no reason. Would you still attend the date? No.
So the answer to why someone blows off a date with another person would be because they realized they didn't really like them very much, yes?

And you can use exactly the same system to figure out why someone would blow you off without telling you, and simply not turn up. Why might you do this to someone? Again, don't be vain and lie, find a reason.
Say you quickly learned with a new person that whenever you said something they didn't like, or didn't agree with, or just shows a completely different point of view or set of values than theirs, they started punching you repeatedly in the face. You'd say nothing to them even if you disagreed with them about something, right? You'd just keep silent and leave them behind at the earliest opportunity, right?
So the answer to why someone blows off a date without even telling the other person would be because they found them unreasonable and disturbing, where it was much easier and more positive to say nothing and simply do their own thing, yes?

OMG, "men" aren't such a mystery after all. We're actually people, not aliens.

It's the Kuomintang all over again. Corporate investors in defence and administration back whichever regime is offering them the best future business deals and/or suitable policy. Particularly where alternative parties/regimes are insular or isolationist.

The Chinese Communist Party was originally nationalist, based in the Yellow River Valley (ancient seat of Chinese government). The Kuomintang claimed to be nationalist but following internal strife, assassinations by their own and leadership disarray essentially comprised little more than pawns of the colonial (US and European sovereign) Treaty Ports. The Chinese didn't want them running dik by the late-20s, but they suited international western agendas. It was well known in China by then they had become corrupt individualists, not nationalists and hardly a viable government. The US even found this out when more than 80% of all financial backing (hundreds of millions) wound up in the pockets of corrupt officials who then ran off with it, whilst airbases were left for peasants to construct using hand tools under American direction. It was all a big joke.

Meanwhile the nationalist Yellow River Valley government, which did not want foreign control and certainly not foreign sovereignty of Chinese territories (which Treaty Ports are), had no choice but to accept Soviet war materiel to fight with, nobody in the west would give them any. The price was Stalin wouldn't give them anything unless they became Soviet, but would open the coffers if they did. So they did.
But they broke from Soviet status a few years after the war. Hereafter they have been known as "Chinese communist" as opposed to "Soviet communist", but in reality they are and have always been Nationalist, even to the extent of fascism.


This complete misrepresentation of foreign cultural affairs is thoroughly typical of modern governing systems. But rest assured, it's not misunderstanding, it's deliberate misrepresentation.

If the EU wanted peace in Ukraine they'd recognize the historic and quite ancient cultural schizm between Crimea but including Odessa and Ukraine shoreline to the Don Valley, and the northern and northwest mainland. One is ancient Greek in origin, the other is Slav. Even during the mediaeval period this area was divided with national borders as the Khanate of Crimea. It identifies as Asian, whilst northern Ukraine identifies as Slavic.

On top of that you've got a cultural divide between both these distinct regions and Russia proper. Ukraine is actually the russian word for frontier, to old school Russians Ukrainian independence, particularly in the northern and northeast mainland is like Texas declaring itself an independent nation. What's more part of what was once the Ukraine/Crimea, the Don Valley has been Russia proper for some time.

Then there's another issue, of national security and we all know how seriously the US takes that. Russia, as in the Kremlin does too. And the Kuban peninsula right next to Ukraine/Crimea is a primary military training area and defence district, Georgia and the eastern Black Sea, plus Crimea and Ukraine are the main guards against any potentially successful foreign invasion.
Think of it in terms of Germany in WW2, coming up through the Med to attack what Churchill called "the soft underbelly of Germany" actually worked very well. And that's what the area is to Russia, it's a national security nightmare. They don't want NATO in there, meaning they don't want anti-Russian, pro-NATO government in there either.
Closest you've got so far is Rumania and Bulgaria, on the western Black Sea, but you're still not technically allowed to put a carrier battlegroup in the Black Sea because UN Treaties prohibit it (Russians can because theirs don't have catapults so are called cruisers with air complement instead of aircraft carriers).
You can send the Tarawa or Euro helicopter-carriers with Harriers, but they're no match for sea Flankers on the Kuznetsov or land based air.
As it stands the closest you can get NATO warbird bases to Russian airspace in the Black Sea region is from Iraq or Bulgaria, meaning only very long range types with light loads, enough of a restriction to put NATO birds at a combat disadvantage against current Russian/CIS interceptors. Launching from Poland or Bulgaria, not even Eagles and Raptors have any chance to bombing anything important and nothing else is going to survive, B2 Spirits are very much into conjecture, but definitely nothing else at that range.
For best US strategic superiority: the combined arms and coordinated force initiative (used in Iraq with tremendous success), you need close bases, lots of things like Vipers and such, which are short range, high turnaround types. Can't do it at the moment, meaning any conflaguration with Russian Federation or the Kremlin has to go nuclear just like at the height of the cold war.

Bottom line, Russia doesn't want NATO there and considers nothern Ukraine an extension of Russia anyway. But there is argument for Crimean independence with the UN, but the UN peacekeepers are basically chaired by NATO and CIS. One doesn't want to recognize Ukraine independence, the other doesn't want to distinguish between Ukraine and Crimea, both have mostly their own national security issues at heart, which are genuine, but subjective and don't consider the peoples at all.

Now if you tried thinking before being a political reactionary you'd notice it's a blatant embellishment.

Have you bothered researching at all what the NSA actually does?
Domestic CommInt for national security (policing) is a primary role, that means its listening stations filter telecommunications within the US for key phrases like "kill the president" or "suicide".

Do you seriously think the NSA phones up Tel Aviv every time a Boston schoolboy talks about suicide on the 'net with his mates? Or when some thug in St Loius says he wants to kill the president on his mobile?
WTF would Tel Aviv want to know about these things for?

"directly sends all of the intelligence that it gathers to the Israeli regime"? Bullcrap. It's such an obvious embellishment it's infantile and utterly ridiculous. The vast bulk of Intel the NSA gathers actually goes directly to local law enforcement and emergency services, since they're in a position to identify criminal or dangerous activities long before anyone else even knows it's happening. I have actual case examples of this, published and corroberated by LEO spokespeople in media.

Have you bothered researching what Intelligence gathering protocols are in place in the developed world?
Information sharing internationally is not only part of the Intelligence Community environment, it's necessary to maintain any kind of Intelligence community particularly on foreign soil. Otherwise US consulates would simply be banned from all other countries. The way it actually works is local security services are fully aware of the Intelligence gathering/reporting role of foreign consulates, the idea is friendly nations share information and unfriendly ones share disinformation. That's how you keep disagreements from becoming wars, whilst keeping at least some attempt at a level playing field.
Swedish indigenous fighter jets for example (the Gripen, Draken, all of them), use remanufactured and reproduced US engines and radar sets, but Swedish birds are the ones that take best spy photos and aerial intercepts of Russian technology. Information sharing, you give and you get, see how that works?

Now what exactly do you think is going on in the Middle East with half the US military over there all the time?
What, did you think Egypt, Syria or Russia was going to give accurate Intel on what's going on in relation to US interests?
You have to give to get, you have to share with somebody or nobody will tell you anything but lies, and Israel is the only friendly there..


So you not only have no idea what you're talking about, clearly, but you also have no idea what Intelligence gathering even is.
Be a conspiracy theorist sure, but that's insane so this is what it buys you: you're insane feller.

Unfortunately it is a social statement and continues on into the workplace. I'd say anyone with half a brain and an ounce of ambition in the trades and services industries can attest to that.

But suggest free education and they'll just bully you yelling commie. Yes the same bullies are also in politics too.

The lesson is that now you know which kind of people were behind Iraq, the patriot act and those kinds of policies. Protest them or those bullies when you were a kid run the show when you're an adult.
That's the game, certain kinds of people showed you their true colours once, now you know what they're made of through and through. Recognize which ones they are as an adult, stop them with reform every time they poke their heads up in offices of administration and policy.

I mean think about it, what is the guy picketing an abortion clinic with offensive slogans doing if not acting like a child beating on defensless girls. It follows that is what that person did as a kid, and probably does at home with his wife and daughters if he has any.

Bullying is a bigger issue than self indulgence or pity, it's a social statement meaning actionable response is warranted and it is the responsibility of those which are concerned about it or by it. Personally I like heading right for the bigger picture, keeps my mind off the past whilst doing something positive about it.

Nothing more satisfying dealing with a bullish employer for example, than being both good for business and bad for his wrong atttitudes. It's sort of like a karmic win. Thought, word and deed changes the world. But let up on it, or fail to be concerted and in this example, the bullish employer becomes a nightmarish waste of years without gain, where you leave with less than you started and achieved nothing but yet another personal loss for the experience.

This assertion transferred back to the schoolyard environment basically means parents deserve the right to move their children between schools until they can either find the right demographic environment for them, or the kids can accomplish a suitable social skills development relative to the most appropriate of those available, without systemic frustration as a factor. That would basically require free education.
It wouldn't solve the fact children bully children simply because they can, but far less dramatic variation would turn actual beatings commonplace in randomly gathered, regional state public schools into sarcastic comments which are relatively low impact and can be dealth with in pure social skills development without inexorable psychoses based on childhood PTSD. Less variation means more empathy and less self justification of violence, dramatic variation seems sickly or threatening to the child mind, at extreme to a physiological degree as neurology is in fact biochemistry.

It's not segregation when it's freedom. I'm not suggesting segregate demographics in the school system (which already happens on an income basis), I'm suggesting free individual demographics (which would be about accessibility to varied demographic education environments without financial burden).

A mindless and ultimately pointless attempt at terrorism by a clearly unintelligent, violent criminal group, with only collatoral damage achieved where no specific objective could possibly be attained. All you can do with individuals like this is stand them up against a wall and shoot them, clearly.


What I can't help but wonder, however is if you in fact support them and are attempting to divert accountability from these criminals for this crime. You further threaten the safety of minors which are still being held unlawfully against their will.


You see, what you geniuses have managed to achieve here is to hold a religion accountable for a criminal act. This elicits two legal establishments:
1. that the criminals are not responsible for their crimes, their religion is.
2. that the criminals cannot be prosecuted for their crimes, you will have to subpoena Allah to appear before a court and answer charges in order to prosecute these criminals on a lesser charge.
Secondly your answer to combat crime is to commit more crime: religious persecution to answer violent but clearly incompetent attempts at terrorism in undeveloped nations. Congratulations twice, you're as intellectually unevolved as these violent criminals.


Blame the religion when you see gods tossing lightning bolts at people. Otherwise, try holding criminals and terrorists accountable for criminal and terrorist acts. At least they can be prosecuted.

o_o

Because anyone else just rolled their eyes and facepalmed at the idea of a 20yr old little white girl living in ghana without an entire entourage of professional bodyguards, armoured cars, etc.

Trust what again? What were you trusting in the first place? That somebody owed you something when you opened your legs for them?

That's just not how it is.

There's nothing at stake so trust is irrelevent.

eg. If you want to sleep with someone then do. If you don't then don't. If you do and they turn out to be a horrible person to you, it doesn't make any difference to the fact you wanted to sleep with them so you did. How is trust an issue there?

Trust becomes an issue when interpersonal relationships are a contractual obligation to you. And you know what the problem there is? They aren't.

You want to know who to trust? Trust yourself. Trust yourself to do what you want to do and don't do anything you don't want to do.
Let me say that again. Don't do anything you don't want to do.

That way, no matter what happens, no matter how bad or good it turns out to be, no matter what, you can always look back and say, "At least I did what I wanted to do every step of the way."


Now honestly, your problem seems to be that you don't always do what you want to do, and often do what you don't want to do.

That is a problem, I agree. You should sort that out with a counseler before your next relationship or it's probably going to go very bad even with the right person.

lol so that's how porn is made :D

Social class imposition means you're more about cosmetics and lifestyle selection than you are about who you care to be associated with in terms of demonstrable moral character.

It's a social statement, not a personal statement. Even when being made by a person, even if they're emotional about it.

An example of a pretentiously dating woman would be where she has a badboy thing until she learns they can rarely accord an idealistic lifestyle, at which point she casts her rod at men in positions of power or relative wealth, typically characterising male personalities by terms relating to behavioural pathology and not moral character (eg. "I like a man who opens doors for me" when a rapist will happily open a door for someone he later intends to rape, etc.).

Basically you need to actually try to force yourself to be an intelligent version of you to be a civilised human and that takes effort, but people are intellectually lazy...


Plus what CrystalFairy said..

Not exactly, we have to destroy your body here and reconstruct it somewhere else via transmissible information taken in a medical scan before you "leave".

Error probability kind of goes up with how you get reconstructed with each "trip" so after a few you might start wearing your uterus on the outside or something :D

IQ testing is a cognitive assessment which is relative to a control body.
All it does is measure deviation from the control body.

The Anthropologist Society ethic clearly states (paraphrasing) that 'IQ testing is so subjective it does not comprise evidence for any kind of scientific assertion.'

You mood, diet, recent activities and transient behavioural routines will affect an IQ test. The methodology of the test will affect your score. The type of control body used will affect your score.

IQ tests are meaningless as any kind of social statement. They can only help give very loose pointers for very specific aptitudes you may or may not be orientated towards at the time of the test.

And many IQ test forms are bogus, the standardized ones vary dramatically with precepts and have entirely different objectives, and the way the test is conducted also affects things.

The question is non-sequiteur, but at any rate IQ is not gender specific, it's a cognitive measure.