> Isn't this the whole reason a sexual interest in children even exists?

One prominent theory behind the cause of paedophilia in this book - the extract below from this book, but is based on the first source.

>...Another form of evidence is to use data on brain structure and neuroendocrinology. This has some fascinating implications both for understanding how many paedophiles there may be in a population and also what the biochemical basis of paedophilia (or at least some aspects of it) might be. Studies have looked at how the male human brain is ‘masculinised’ and ‘defeminised’ by hormones circulating in the mother’s body while the baby is still in the womb.

>At the embryo stage, all babies are ‘female’ in that, unless acted upon by specific hormones, babies develop the internal reproductive organs, external genitalia and forms of brain structure which are ‘feminine’ or ‘female-typical’. Only in the relative presence of certain hormones and the relative absence of others will embryos develop into males. In order to become male, therefore, an embryo needs both to be actively ‘masculinised’ and also actively ‘defeminised’.

>The process of masculinisation occurs first, then defeminisation. According to biologists studying animal models (Feierman 1990; Hutchison and Hutchison 1990), the neurochemical process of masculinisation links sexuality with ‘social dominance’ behaviours, that is, competitive aggressiveness, active ‘courtship’ and ‘mounting’ or ‘insertion’ behaviours. This linking of sexuality with social dominance makes males sexually attracted to ‘small’, ‘weak’, ‘young’ and ‘helpless’ individuals (Feierman 1990: 46).

>Feierman suggests that the brains of paedophiles are ‘extremely masculinised’ (1990: 46; later Feierman adjusts this to ‘slightly more masculinised than occurs in adult heterosexual males’, 1990: 53), making them more likely to find extremely submissive (that is, very small, weak, young and helpless) individuals the most sexually attractive.

>The neurochemical process of defeminisation removes the ‘female-typical’ behaviour patterns (such as mammals sticking out their bottoms to encourage males to mate with them – think Marilyn Monroe, if you will) and at the same time increases the likelihood that males will find such ‘feminised’ behaviour sexually alluring (think of the typical heterosexual male response to Monroe).

>Feierman claims that paedophiles are ‘slightly less defeminised’ than heterosexual men (1990: 53), thus they would be less likely to be aroused by typical ‘feminine’ behaviours.

>Sociobiological explanations for human behaviour do have a rather conservative tendency to look at what is, and then search for explanations in unlikely places (mice, reptiles, birds and so forth) to explain and justify the social status quo; however, the two-dimensional model of embryonic brain masculinisation and brain defeminisation can both suggest why some men might find children sexually attractive and also predict, given a normal distribution curve for this biochemical process, what order of magnitude we might expect for paedophiles in a population.

>Feierman (1990: 51), looking only at men, suggests that ‘the central tendency in evolution is to produce heterosexual males by producing an optimal amount of masculinisation and defeminisation of the male brain in utero.’ When the levels of masculinisation and defeminisation are slightly skewed, homosexuality, paedophilia (to either males or females) or transsexualism will result. From this model, Feierman predicts that, in any given population of men, paedophiles will be more common than homosexuals who will in turn be more common than transsexuals. He also predicts that:

>If the distribution of the points in the model reflects differing degrees of masculinisation and defeminisation of the male brain, then there is every reason to believe that the distributions would actually be continuous across all males rather than being discontinuous around arbitrary and nonmutually exclusive categories such as ‘heterosexual’ and ‘androphilic ephebophile’ [a man attracted to adolescent boys]. (Feirerman 1990: 52)

>Feierman later describes this rather technically but memorably in the following way:

>[Paedophiles] are the ‘by-products’ of the inevitable biological variation around a selected central tendency. So that most males will ‘love’ children and adolescents just the right amount…some males will unfortunately love them too little and some too much. Such males, who love children and adolescents to a degree more than average or less than average, will be carried along in a population in the tails of frequency distributions. …It is most likely, therefore, that pedo- and ephebophilia are individual, facultative proclivities that are bent out of the tails of hormonal frequency distributions around the optimum brain masculinisation and brain feminisation of the ‘average male’. (Feierman 1990: 559, 563)

>In other words, Feierman seems to be implicitly proposing four important hypotheses in this model:
>1. Paedophilia is caused by brain chemistry arising before birth: that is, paedophiles are born, not made.
>2. Paedophiles fall within a normal distribution curve for human males.
>3. Paedophiles are more common than homosexuals.
>4. Sexual attraction to individuals smaller and more ‘feminine’ than oneself (including boys and young adolescents) is part of a continuum occurring in all males, not just paedophiles, and thus there is no clear cut-off point between a ‘paedophile’ and a ‘non-paedophile’.

This would support your belief that the attraction towards children is characterised by a desire to dominate them, but reading the first hand accounts of self-professed paedophiles suggests otherwise. Paedophiles who describe their attraction as romantic or as an infatuation, describe how they consider the objects of their attraction to be equal to them, and how their fantasies often involve the children taking control. This would suggest that more is going on than a simple domination preference. More research needs to be done in this area.

>Also, I wouldn't call 20% common, but definitely a considerable value.

Given what is quoted above, that it is likely to be more common than homosexuality, I would argue that it is common.

>So, nearly half? That's even more considerable.

Well, 30% is the most common percentage reported, but there is some overlap with incest offenders.

>Anyone with a sexual interest in children needs to see a therapist, or never act upon those desires. Please

Agreed, but I think society needs to do more to make this an option as a mandatory reporting laws mean that many paedophiles would face possible investigation or being outed as a paedophile despite never having acted on their feelings.

> If you want to connect your Wii Mote to your PlayStation 4, there's simply no way of doing so while on PC you can very easily hook it up through Bluetooth [...] So no, consoles don't have as many controller options as PC

That's a bit of a stretch, but even with that in mind...

> Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3.

I should've clarified: you may not get the exact same options for controllers on PlayStation, but you'll pretty much get the same kind of variety. For example, you could only use the Thrustmaster TS-PC Racer on PC, but on PS4, you could use the Thrustmaster T300 or TG, the latter being based on the TS-PC and T300. Even if you don't get the same specific options, you pretty much get the same variety.

_____

> I don't know if you're even aware of this yourself, but you cherrypicked four games to support your argument [...] Just now, there's a Bandai Namco sale and Dark Souls 3 is $30 as opposed to the "inferior" PS4 version which costs $60.

It may cost $60 on PSN (where I assume you're getting the number from), but if I wanted the PS4 version of Dark Souls 3, I could get it for $40... for the Complete Edition, but I could also get the Standard Edition for $20. Both Physical.

I didn't Specifically go out of my way to choose these games, I just went with the first games that came to mind. But if you really don't believe me, let's go to the Steam front page and I'll just compare the first discounted game I see on the front page.

The Division, a game that came out recently going for only $20 for Steam? That's not bad.

In fact, if we look on Amazon for a New PS4 copy, it's $24 for a disc, maybe you were right... For a new copy.

If we look for used copies, We can get the game for as low as $12 for a PS4 disc. Now, even if you're thinking "Oh, well that just means you have to deal with someone's disc, they could've damaged it," here's the thing:

1. I specifically chose "Like New," which products are only specifically listed under if they have no defects, and are only really put here if, at most, the box has been opened.
   
2. The disc is installed to the PS4's hard drive upon the first insertion, after that you just need it so the system can verify that you still own the game. So? The disc doesn't need to be read to play the game, so scratches won't get in the way.
   
3. Games are on Blu Ray discs, which are far stronger than the DVDs they used to be on.
   
   Need I say more?
   
   _
   
   > This analogy is fine except you didn't mention anywhere that you don't get to choose your two additional (they're not free, you pay for them) meals every month, so if you're not interested in pizza and in one specific month they have free pizza then you don't get the additional meal that you paid for.
   
   This is true, but let's be fair, you get 2 new choices every month, per system. Even if you only own one system, chances are you'll get enough good options to make up for the $60. EDIT: Forgot to say, even if you don't like the Pizza, the other meal might be a steak dinner that you'd fancy.
   
   But even if you don't want to count the free games, don't forget the part about the part where I said "Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)."
   
   Now, you may be thinking "wait, weren't you just talking about how Digital games are more expensive?" Well that's the thing, these discounts can be amazing, and occur weekly, which I would say means they "occur very often."
   
   For example, remember when I mentioned DiRT Rally? That game was discounted for PS Plus members. How much? Well, I bought it for $18, which is even cheaper than you can get it on Amazon. Even if you want to mention that it has previously been discounted on steam for a similar amount (which it was), both sales happened for a week, and right now, they're both $60 digitally (but, again, cheaper physical disc).
   
   The discounts and the free games can near-guarantee that the annual fee will balance out, and again, it is not guaranteed to be more expensive to game on console.
   
   _
   
   > The weekly free Steam games are free, the games you get for paying a service are not free
   
   Ignoring the fact that I haven't heard about "weekly free Steam games," keep in mind:
   
   > even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts?
   
   Steam isn't the only one with sales, and PSN also has free games (that you don't need PS Plus for). Again, you don't need PS Plus for sales, PS Plus just gets you more sales.
   
   _____
   
   > pragmatically those systems are going to break down. Don't think there exists statistics for this, but my own PS2 and PS3 both had to be replaced during their own generations. If they were PCs, I could simply swap out the faulty parts for way cheaper than buying new PCs.
   
   ...Which costs money. I'll say it again:
   
   > You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
   
   Just as easily as someone could say they needed to replace their PS2, someone could just as easily need to replace one of the many parts in their PC, which can often cost more than a PlayStation.

Your delusional pipeline comment:

First, you need to understand the nature of Indigenous countries. Prior to and during invasion, Europeans were not coming to some "undiscovered land" bullshit, but they were landing in foreign countries. The French sailed and planted down in Dawnland/Wabanaki but more specifically in one district of Mi'kma'ki. The expansion westward in the Manifesting a Genocidal Destiny was the invasion, settlement and colonisation of many hundreds of prairie countries like nêhiyaw-askiy (Plains Cree Country), Očhethi Šakówiŋ (Dakota/Lakota Country), Niitsítpiis-stahkoii (Blackfeet Country), Anishinaabewaki (Ojibwe/Chippewa Country), Nʉmʉnʉʉ Sookibotʉ (Comanche Country), Dinétah (Navajo Country), Apsáalooke Issawua (Crow Country) and many, many, many more. These are lands that have and had boundaries, that were and are named and are known to be the countries of these various nations

Ignoring the US for a second because every single treaty the US has every signed with an Indigenous nation has been broken. In Canada, treaties are kinda well-regarded (comparatively anyhow), for the treaties (like the US, but the US ignores this) form the literal foundation for the State of Canada. Weird, I know, but it is true. It is like how the Treaties of Versailles and other European ones are the literal foundation for the States of Europe we know today

British Columbia is a good example where majority of the province covers untreatied or unceded lands. This means that where treaties elsewhere in Canada allowed foreign citizens protected and negotiated through the Crown to settle in these foreign (Indigenous) countries. However, as protected through Delgamuukw which asserted §35 of the Constitution and §25 of the Charter which both in turn entrenched the rights of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 ... these decisions (and more are coming like one in Ontario and one with Secwépemc) all state that Indigenous countries do indeed maintain aboriginal title and rights to their countries as countries (though not quite stated as such)

Right now, there are about ~60 countries within and across the borders of BC, only about 15 or so are protected by historical or modern treaties. Otherwise, the rest of the countries and their citizens remain as subjects protected by and from the Crown.

The pushing through of a pipeline across Secwepemcúl̓ecw, through Wet'suwet'en Yin'tah or even through the treatied lands of Očhethi Šakówiŋ (Great Sioux Nation; Laramie Treaty) amounts to invasion of internal foreign countries and is a continuation of the same types of colonisation that began on this continent about 500 years back. Parts of their countries are being cordoned off by developers and development, taken away from the rights of that or those governments who traditionally and legally oversee those lands and you have the gall to say that that is not stealing their land

Please, please, please, please read these two books. One is easy and impactful, and the other is dense but also impactful. They should shine a bit of a light onto what is going on.

The first, Unsettling Canada, helps place everything into the correct spotlight and gives a great overview of the situation. There are millions of other American books like "American Apartheid" and "An American Genocide" that do similar work for the States, but Unsettling Canada is a fun, easy read for the most part.

The second, Secwépemc People, Land and Laws, is an excellent tome on the history of just one country: Secwepemcúl̓ecw. It goes through their 12,000 year history of solid occupation of their lands, showing cross-disciplinarily how they have lived and worked their country for those thousands of years. It should give an idea of how laws, at least from the Cascadian Plateau part of this continent, are formed and how the countries consider themselves. There is a heartbreaking passage about a BC highway extension that destroyed an immensely culturally important landmark in the form of some rock formations that should help shed some light on what modern-day land seizures look like and what toll it takes on the cultures whose lands are being stolen

To quote someone else in this thread.
> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.

> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.
_

There's even more where that came from, but you should probably just take the L and move on.

(edit:Fixed some dead links, will fix the rest later. There's already more than enough there to discredit the baseless "diversity is our strength" neomarxist dogma though.)

https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Africa-historically-never-been-technologically-and-militarily-as-developed-as-the-rest-of-the-world

I've seen you attacking people for "being unwilling to change their stance" a lot but, maybe give this a read. Or if you're actually the "facts don't care about your feelings" guy and are so self assured in your "solid" opinion, maybe give this a read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Germs-Steel-history-everybody/dp/0099302780

Here's a short summary since I have a feeling you won't be that interested, and it is VERY short summary.

"To summarise some of the main reasons, 1 geography: in places like Europe the geography of the land contributed 2 main things to societal development, the first being agricultural access(or how easy it is to farm excess) and also the opportunity of trade mostly through water routes. The ability to easily farm lead to specialisations in societies, or people who specialised in specific tasks, enabling that civilisations to further progress. The ease of trade allowed ideas and technology to spread and take root in farther lands than the origin (the Mediterranean). Another big factoring this varied development of societies is domestic animals. While Europe had the cow, pig, horses, chicken, etc. places like Africa had almost no domesticated animals to help mainly agriculture and transport of goods."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel This wikipedia article also breaks many of the key points down into smaller chunks to read over.

I'm an American but currently studying in Denmark. While it isn't great to compare the two countries as they have very different populations and cultural norms the highest tax bracket in Denmark is 55%, that's only for the RICHEST members of society, otherwise taxation for middle and lower class is somewhere between 25-39% depending where you fall income-wise. Healthcare is excellent and free as is education. America has about 100x the population of Denmark and increasing taxes on the upper and upper middle class should be able to lead to affordable healthcare. Economics is a hard subject, I'd recommend reading a couple books, I hear this one is pretty good

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Dummies-Peter-Antonioni/dp/0470973250

I got 3 tables:

1. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country
   
   
2. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - this is what sane people care about, not that it's gun homicide.
   
   
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
   
   There were some gaps, and this isn't meant to be exhaustive, and I didn't check the methodology of the source data: Wikipedia is "good enough" for a Reddit comment.
   
   I put it in a spreadsheet and ran a correlation on guns to intentional homicide rate and got a correlation of -0.04359 (or -0.04283 if you chop out gaps).
   
   Civilian gun ownership correlates slightly negatively with intentional homicide rate. This mirrors what I've seen other statics say: basically almost no correlation. Now I recognize that this doesn't exactly address my original assertion which was about gun control not gun ownership since there could be high gun control societies which also have high civilian gun ownership. This could take the form of allowing private ownership of firearms, but saying they must be stored at a range. It could take the form of banning concealed or open carry in public. I don't believe that societies with high civilian gun ownership have strict implementations of these types of laws, but it is a problem with my assertion.
   
   Average IQ (which is a proxy for g) correlates moderately negatively with the intentional homicide rate, at -0.35236. That is, the higher the average IQ of a nation, the less intentional homicide there is.
   
   This makes sense to me because, the more intelligent people are, the more opportunities they create for one another and the more likely people are to be able to come to some agreement without homicide. It could also be due to wealth which could be influenced by high IQ or low wealth could be depressing IQ. Probably both.
   
   I suspect this is a better debate to be having, but it gets into hatefact territory. I'd like to see a correlation between social trust/cohesion or time preference and intentional homicide rate, but these are too hard to gather in a short amount of time if they exist at all. IQ is the psychometric with the strongest genetic correlation and has been exhaustively studied. The big 5 personality traits are somewhat looser and still subject to a moderate amount of debate.

Multiple reasons.

1.) Straight men are 49% of the population. Gay men are less than 1%. So, there's quite a big difference in how concentrated those populations are.

2.) Child drag queens which are even more disturbing than child pageants, came with the lgbt movement, which once again, is less than 1% of the population, so it's much easier to attribute to.

3.) Being straight is not an evolutionary dead end. It's a necessity. If all straight people vanished tommorow and were replaced by gay people, humanity would vanish within a generation.

4.) It is an indisputable fact that the gay part of the population is far more sexually degenerate than the straight part. Examples:

Syphilis was almost eradicated but made a comeback thanks to homosexual men. Despite being less than 1% of the population gay men account for 83% of all syphilis cases.

75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men. In one study only 9% of gay men were monogamous. The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year.

Gay men are more likely to have been abused by partners than straight men. They are 151 times more likely to have hepatitis B than straight men

46% of male homosexuals report being molested opposed to 7% of heterosexual men.

Gay men are 60 times more likely to have HiV than everyone else.

79% of gay men say over half their partners are strangers.

ect ect, I have hundreds of examples if these are not enough.

Abuse, and general sexual degeneracy are commonplace within this fraction of the population.



So, you have a tiny fraction of the population who's majority is verifiably proven to enganging in what is objectively sexually degenerate behaviour, and with it came the normalization of child drag queens. It's far easier to connect the dots here than it is to connect the dots between all straight people and child peagants. Especially considering that you need straight people if you want humanity to continue existing.

No no, don't run away. I'm a reasonable person, if you have something I can read, I'll give it a chance.

Please send me links, videos, or books backing what you say. Mine consist mainly on the following sources:

Robert Sapolsky, Stanford University ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&t=300s ),

Jordan Peterson's book Maps of Meaning: https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922216/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1574861748&sr=8-1

I don't remember the exact text from Freud but I have this book ( https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Psychopathology-Everyday-Interpretation-Contributions/dp/067960166X/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=freud&qid=1574861681&sr=8-3 )

I also went over the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

I don't really have the energy nor the time to link each element of my comments to what I read, that would take me some rereading, but if you read some fragments of what I am sourcing, you'll find I am not an original thinker, I am just repeating what other very informed and intelligent individual have stated. Steven Pinker is also mentioned in the Wikipedia page.

Please send me the links or some lead to the sources of your opinions, whenever I have the time, I will gladly read them.

You should read this book.

> > Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War

If you choose to read it, I would love to have a conversation with you about it again.

The sooner you can set a precedent of cards and small gifts (if your husband feels like he has to do something), the better. For coworkers, cards are enough. For friends and other people for whom I need to get gifts, I've been sending baby keepsake books like this or this [parenting diary] (https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Club-Baby-Book-Misadventures/dp/145216620X(https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Club-Baby-Book-Misadventures/dp/145216620X) with the coordinating [comedy book] (https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Club-Parenting-Milestones-Coming/dp/1452153477/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1452153477&pd_rd_r=15f6744d-b9cc-11e8-ac55-834a4eb79bb6&pd_rd_w=QHIVR&pd_rd_wg=XtLKf&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=3f9889ac-6c45-46e8-b515-3af650557207&pf_rd_r=AGE6YVD8BAZ1TXGNCR39&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=AGE6YVD8BAZ1TXGNCR39) dependent upon whether I think the parents like comedy and what I've gifted in the same social circle. Your husband could talk to a few coworkers who aren't attending to go in on these books together instead of picking a big ticket item from the registry. It would be cheap and take care of the social obligations.

You have more of a relationship problem than an actual problem with life event invitations. If your husband could manage to say no, you wouldn't be forced into a position of buying gifts for people you don't know. You don't actually have to go off of the registry for events, whether it's for family or strangers. Registries make it easy to coordinate, guests don't have to struggle for ideas, and no one has to deal with return receipts or multiples of the same stuff. Inviting coworkers may be a gift grab, but she could honestly think it's the polite thing to do.

I guess science and data are racist now lmao

Here ya go:
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299

The findings are pretty well accepted at this point. Scientific figures like Richard Dawkins have acknowledged the findings as legitmate, just "not useful to talk about".

But sure, go ahead and stick your head in the sand rather than engage in dialogue. Ignorance is bliss.

This is the one I use. It's a bit pricey, but absolutely worth it. Especially if you have an amazon echo and you can connect your lights to your smart home. You can just tell it to turn lights on or off, color, brightness, etc.

Totally not needed however for the day night cycle.

Just need to connect the bulbs to your wifi and your phone app.

​

https://www.amazon.com/LIFX-Adjustable-Multicolor-Dimmable-Assistant/dp/B01KY02MS8/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1FW29Z14J9URS&keywords=lifx+bulb&qid=1556904877&s=gateway&sprefix=lifx%2Caps%2C173&sr=8-3

I mean, hair dryers are pretty inexpensive. You wouldn't need a high powered one, (I'm sure that there's a "TIFU by blistering my anus with a blow dryer", so you want to make sure that it has a low or cool setting.)

It would depend on where your outlets are in the bathroom, though! I'm thinking that someone with a bidet wouldn't want an extension cord running across the bathroom. So most of your money would be spent on the wiring and electricity!

You could get the dryer for $25. https://www.amazon.com/Andis-1600-Watt-Mounted-HangUp-30135/dp/B001UE7D3C/ref=sr_1_7?crid=H9JBOT4TF4AY&keywords=hair+dryer+with+holder+wall+mount&qid=1570784518&sprefix=HAIR+DRYER+WITH+HOLD%2Caps%2C725&sr=8-7

The bidet would also be $25

https://www.amazon.com/SlimEdge-Attachment-Electric-Install-Internal/dp/B07CGVBZGL/ref=sr_1_9?crid=154KKOVJ7Z31Q&keywords=bidet&qid=1570784630&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&sprefix=BIDE%2Caps%2C711&sr=8-9

So, if you know someone whose handy with electricity, you could have your setup for $50, a pizza and a 12 pack!

​

PS, insomnia will make you look up weird things on Reddit!

Don't do PuA. It can work but will lead you down a bad and toxic path, and invite toxic partners. I recently read a book by Mark Manson, called "Models Attract Women through Honesty". Great book, the only dating book you'll ever need.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Women-Through-Honesty/dp/1463750358/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2M55DHIEGSTFR&keywords=attract+women+through+honesty&qid=1565988682&s=gateway&sprefix=attract+w%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-2

I just did a google search and it looks like there are a few. Here, is a listing to one with some links to other options as well

https://www.amazon.com/Action-Bible-Doug-Mauss/dp/0781444993

And it looks like here is one that is online in pdf form:

https://goodandevilbook.com/english//Good-and-Evil-English-Full.pdf

Right, and that is misappropriation by the anti-communists. People that want to make money off of insulin want you to think "cheap healthcare"="communism"="ussr"="attrocities". Capitalists in America profit by you associating communism with the USSR. At the time, USSR autocrats maintained control by pretending to be communist. That is why you have that association.

Progressives are notoriously bad at branding and capitalists are really good. We are never going to make people associate socialism with symbols like this:

https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Socialists-America-Flag-Banner/dp/B01N7IBLZW

We don't have any great symbols for education and healthcare that haven't been corrupted by association with USSR. If there was some recognizable non-soviet communist flag, people would use that one instead.

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-History/dp/149591092X/

Ok. Get reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140481&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+bell+curve&dpPl=1&dpID=51iCoWIekpL&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/1593680198/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140556&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=race+and+intelligence&dpPl=1&dpID=51s-4ElHCFL&ref=plSrch