Today I learned that if you only have one sexual partner in your lifetime, or if you view sex is solely for marriage, you're a "hyper-Puritan."

 From the horse's mouth: A Swede. 

But here's my take:

Why I don't follow any official food philosophy pertaining to morality or ethics.

 The morality and ethical arguments just aren't that convincing to me - at least on a secular standpoint. When a non-religious person says the don't eat meat and/or dairy due to some ethical plain it's hard for me to take them seriously. Most people who are vegan tend to be from US, Canada or Western Europe. You have to choose to be vegan or not eat meat - barely anyone is it naturally. Unlike the "big questions" in life, like "is there a god?", a kid is vegan like a cat is vegan - their parent or owner made them vegan. People eat meat around the world as well consume dairy. 

I'm more sorta kinda like an intuitive eater where my version of this is including foods such as dairy (cheese, cow milk) and meat, but there's also veggies, fruits and beans; as well as vegan stuff like almond milk and oat products. Since I'm open minded on food I'm more than willing to eat no meat burgers and sausages, but they're aren't going to be a staple in my food arsenal. 

You can say I'm an all inclusive eater. I limit my added sugar intake, but I have no issue eating Cinnabun or a Pop-tart if I'm craving it due to a "nostalgic" food drive one day or opt for ice cream that is made of cream and milk and sugar. It's just that I don't eat such foods every week or even every month at that. I don't buy into the premise that white flour is so bad for you that you need to stop eating it right now or else. France is renown for their bread and, guess what, they use all-purpose flour. 

I'll go as far to say that there is no true morality or philosophy on what you shouldn't eat (sorry Jews who abstain from pork). Yes, that runway model can eat salmon and meat and consume whole milk and ice cream made out of sugar, just stuff like ice cream should probably be limited to once a month. Can she run and do home exercises to keep the fat at bay? She should. 

It's the same attitude I view of alcohol. If some dumb Brit actress is going to go the pub to have a pint, yet says she's a vegetarian or vegan for "health purposes" or ethical purpose, like bitch, please. 

Food diets based on morality and ethics is literally man made morality; it's a social construct. 

No doubt if I'm preparing for a half-marathon I'm going to limit my gelato intake. Steak? Chicken? Salmon? Bring it on, especially after long runs. Beef? Sure, but it'll be a minority in my meat arsenal, though with that said I don't mind a good mince meat homemade taco during a warm summer's night or a shepherds pie on a cold Sunday night - but it just depends on what I'm preparing for as I get better as a runner.

I may limit certain foods for practical reasons - mainly health, but I never necessarily eliminate it due to some ethical or moral argument. I love barbecue, especially pulled pork, but I'll probably eat it no more than twice a year simply because I don't crave it as much as I do other foods. Eating ice cream with milk and sugar ain't gonna kill you if you eat one cup (8 oz.) once a month unless you're diabetic. If you're diabetic it's best not eat it. Sorry, I know, life's not fair. 

Just limit the process food and added sugar you eat though. That's practically the only "rule" I have. The key word is limit - not eliminate unless your body can't X or Y something that causes you to break out in hives or have a cardiac arrest right there and then. Other key word that can be used is moderation.

As they say, life's too short and variety is the spice of life. I apply this to food. 

Cousin who runs marathons and does Ironmans? Not a vegan or vegetarian. Top athlete's like Gwen Jorgensen? Doesn't really count calories but eats salmon and eggs.

Veganism and vegetarianism (heck, even the carnivore diet)? You might as well call it scientology. 

"It's Not A Disorder!"

 If same sex attraction (homosexuality, bisexuality) and transgenderism (aka gender identity disorder) aren't disorders, but just misunderstood orientations why, across the world, are such people in said groups treated like they have a disorder? 

Why in the US are there LGBT+ "safe places" or center? Why is the Pride flag seen as some innocent do-good symbol despite its history while the American flag and Back the Blue flag are seen in a dark light? Why are there a number of tv shows and series trying to make same sex attraction "like totally normal", and the the LGBT+ character is met with tension, it's shown that they can't properly cope with it therefore they move to suicidal acts or self-harm? Let's look other minorities: blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Native American.

Besides the whole "black owned businesses" featured on Yelp and "representation", blacks tend to have decent coping skills despite Jim Crow laws and its effects. When they were barred from obtaining a basic education they made their own school and doubled their literacy rate in a relatively short time span, granted many issues still prevail in the black demographic.

Even in places where it's socially "progressive" like the Nordic countries rates of LGBT+ suicide is still high to the straight population. 

Let's face it: same sex attraction is a disorder. Same thing with transgenderism. You don't eat a rotting animal carcass like a vulture would do, do you? No. If you do you probably have a disorder such as when people crave and eat inanimate objects. Well, if you're a women who's sexually attracted to women you're going against what your biological reality is made for. If you're a guy who things he's a women then you're not acknowledging your biological reality. Funny enough, if the male and female brains are identical then the transgender advocates say that we have to look deeper because neurologically transgender females have systems similar to biological females. Wait, I thought there were no big differences between males and females?

What Do You Do To Enjoy A Nihilistic Night Where You Don't Have Any Responsibilities Besides Yourself?

Maybe labeling it nihilistic is too strong of a word choice. How about aimless? 

So you're off of work. No deadlines to meet. No dependents. Dog is mature enough to leave them by themselves for a few hours at home. Don't have any plans with friends or significant other. No dinner with the parents. What do you do? You don't care for indulging in culture - so no ballet, opera or a play or musical. No live music tonight. No flick at some art house theater. You don't care for any of those tonight. You don't care for going out to the bar and having a drink alone. 

You make "goals." That aimlessness slowly turns into "goal oriented", even for just a couple of hours. What are these goals? Hmmm. 

Get out of the apartment? 

Get some fresh air? 

Be around people? 

Spend some money because we're in America?

Walmart Supercenter answers all of these. Hear me out. It is culture, just not high culture or culture that is admired by Vogue, Vanity Fair or the Cannes Film Festival committee (not that they know culture anyways). 

Now people don't like Walmart for a number of reasons. It's seen as a place where America's low-income weirdos gather for toothpaste and water guns. There's even subreddit dedicate to such characters in r/peopleofWalmart. I guess you can say these people "have made it." 

The more politically correct ones usually reject Walmart because they prefer smaller shops and dimes the whole corporate monopoly thing. Okay, fair enough. I don't mind. Of course the owners being filthy rich and white doesn't help because SJWs are actually racist towards white people; SJWs are also envious people as well. I don't care if the owners are filthy rich and white. They're arguable smarter than all those SJWs. I'm not really a pro-union guy (Walmart is anti-union), so if you don't like Walmart because of their work practices then I can't say we have something in common. I just don't care that much. What I'm trying to broadcast is that I rarely make political protests with my wallet - especially for everyday items. If a Walgreens is near me I'll go there. If a CVS is near me I'll go there. If a Regal Theater is near me then I'll go there. If Baskin Robbins is near me I'll go there. If a Traders Joe is near me then I will always go there.

For me, a number of years back I found myself enjoying just perusing a Walmart Supercenter. It wasn't too late in the evening - maybe around 8 or 9pm. I was just leaning on my cart as I enjoyed the sites and sounds around me. Walmart Supercenters tend to be brightly lit and well kept. Maybe check out the grocery section. Compare the veggie prices to my local chain. Ask the Walmart employee where the stock their cheese balls. Check out the ridiculous graphic shirts they got (I once got a shirt with a cat on it). May sure you stop by the sporting equipment and bathroom aisles. Get caught up on what's trending in literature in the book aisle. 

You know, if you got a $30 bucks to spend might as well spend it at a Walmart Supercenter. You never know what you'll walk away with. 

At the Walmart Supercenter I tend to go to there's a greeter who also checks receipts once you leave. 

"Have a good night!"

"Thanks, you too!"

And besides shopping for everyday items or just perusing mindlessly in their labyrinth of aisles, I got my COVID booster shot at a regular Walmart. I waited about 20 minutes for it but nonetheless I got out within a half hour. 

Hate-Following By Non-Republicans on Social Media: Tumblr, Media and Academia Made Millennials and Gen Z Hate The Privileged (And Republicans)

Because backwards politics on sex and sexuality, gender, race and whatever.

And something about privilege and them being (usually) white. 

Lately I've did some lazy binge watching on YouTube, just clicking on whatever pops up on my recommendation feed. A couple of channels were from wealthy young women who focused on what is called "lifestyle" - so everyday stuff, usually about travel and fashion. In general, to accumulate a following if you aren't doing anything that makes you stand out you most likely have to be pretty in order to get attention; this is no secret. A likable personality works in your favor too (fair enough). For example, if your channel is a mishmash of cooking and lifestyle (or food/fashion challenges) - all topics which have been done, but you aren't really good at either of them, then that's where looks and personality comes. Editing is godsend since that's like a college counselor making your otherwise bereft resume look like you're some all-star when you're really not. Anyways. 

If you're wealthy you do get more attention, but this attention is more of the envious kind. And this is where it gets interesting. This where "hate-following" comes in.

There were two young women that I quickly watched, one where after a few videos of quick skimming just didn't catch my interest enough to even care what she had to say; real quickly I did notice that she was privileged in the "travel and not really have a 'real' job'" sorta privilege way - living in NYC after college and was a model after high school. Modeling isn't really a longtime career for many who enter - usually it's a two or three years - and then sometimes they're attached to a similar industry for their annual income (whether acting or marketing or working at an agency). I wondered if anyone noticed the same thing, so naturally I googled this person with "reddit" attached to the search and found that, yes, other people had an opinion on her. And some of it was the usual SJW/Woke rhetoric.

"She's privileged."

"Most of her friends are not white."

"She tries to 'pass as white' despite only a quarter of her is Iranian!"

"Isn't it funny she's dating a Republican?" (I guess because she's part Iranian.)

"She keeps reminding people she was born in Paris. She's a missionary baby!"

Her parents apparently were Christian missionaries where she was born overseas, but if you were born overseas in that situation then it's less cool supposedly and "authentic" unlike, I dunno, being born to parents who are naturalized citizens of X or Y Western European country, where your mother was a ballet dancer and your father was socialist activist, and  you moved around every five or so years - some upbringing that some leftie artist or professor flexes about in their biography. 

On r/blogsnark, a reddit subreddit dedicated gossip about online personalities, a woman named Carly apparently did some collaboration with the Bush daughters (daughters of George W. Bush). This isn't cool in the predominately female, leftie leaning and thickheaded gossip followers that hang out in r/blogsnark. After this comment literally stupidness emerged and the can of worms of politics entered the chat. Some were defending the Bush sisters and their mother, saying they seem like reasonable people who acknowledge their "evil" father. Others were just plain delirious on the topic. One person recognized the insanity of it - where the insanity almost blamed them for their familial connection to GWB - and simply asked what in their mind they should do to appease them. As usual, like the college campus BLM demands, when asked what they want usually the demand is quite tame. In this the response was -

"They should at least distance themselves from their father."

Rather absurd. If you don't publicly denounce GWB then you're compliant in the questionable policies he has passed. 

You see, the histrionics of SJW/Leftie retards on the internet is quite impressive. They have a gift to ramble by compiling a novel of talking point after talking point, but, in reality, they don't hav much substance. They yell and throw a fit but once you ask a direct question like "well what do you want to happen?" they'll reply with a quiet "well you see if they just apologized and did this and that then that would be a start ... "

A mouse who acts like a lion.

These screen caps tell the story -

So I guess Democrats are cool parents where their kids get off scotch free. I mean, let's face it, Malia Obamas didn't get into Harvard purely on her academic and extracurricular brilliance. She got in because of who her parents were. Wouldn't be surprise if University of Michigan's acceptance for Sasha was in the bag too. But Obama was so cool and rad, despite doing drone strikes. Besides literally re-starting the racial tension we see today that made Democrat blacks in the Trump Era fragile. Ever read Michelle Obama's senior thesis while at Princeton? It was shit. 

Double standard. Paranoia. The typical douchebaggery from non-Republicans. 

I'm not a Republican, but this type of behavior isn't new. It's just amplified on the internet. In real life I know a few people who despise the fact that anyone they know is a Republican. One said she'd never date a Republican. This same person also came across as a person who knew every non-progressive NGO as if to keep on eye on them. Normal functioning humans, but their psychology is sorta kinda messed up when it comes to their own politics and anything that runs the opposite direction of it. It's a weird mix of a secular religion and tribalism. 

Bottomline: If you're anything remotely privileged in terms of wealth and upbringing where you travel, have nice clothes and have anything remotely conservative affiliated to your name (or in the case of Carly, associate with yourself with anything politically right-of-center), or you yourself are conservative as well you're going to be the target of many jealous and hateful young women. These same people will probably fawn over rich actors though who most likely have a career because of whom their parents are but hey, rich, white YouTube influences are just source of our problems in todays world, right? 

Restricting or Banishing the TLM Doesn't Make Those Take TC To A Whole New Level Look Good.

The TLM is a minority in the States and therefore in every diocese. This is the simple reason why I don't take seriously the "trads are doing all sorts of mean things to undermine the Pope and the Catholic community!" Most likely the average Catholic attends an NO parish and has never been to a Latin mass let alone heard of it, especially if they're under the age of 50. This is why I'm skeptical of those who magically appear on the internet saying "Well I came across a trads who said X and Y and did Z that turned me off." Sure, I bet you did. Or you never did - at all. Stuff that never happened. You'd have to actively seek out a TLM and a more conservative Catholic group if you really wanna come across and weird stuff. 

The banning of TLM in the Diocese of Savannah is literally stupid. Literally. So, if true, that Cardinal Cupich is kicking out ICKSP whose headquarters is located in Chicago, out of the Diocese of Chicago, then that's even more stupid. This is after he allowed St. John Cantius to conintue their offering of the TLM.

Name, Image & Likeliness (NIL) Isn't A "Getting What's Finally Mine" Card And The Hypocrisy of Armchair Economists (There Is Irony To This Post)

 It never was. Why? Because the university in which the athletes are playing for don't pay them. NIL simply allows outside sponsors - which includes boosters - to pay a specific student-athlete a certain amount of money annually. 

There's some talk saying NCAA DI sports was never an amateur league. To a degree I agree, but it wasn't an amateur league you'd be hard pressed to convince it was a professional league because simply put: the student's never got paid. 

People will say DI athletics were "free labor." That's just the prevalent talking point bandied by people who haven't though it thorough. Instead of a paycheck being processed into their bank account, the student-athletes, in exchange of their labor, had their university tuition and fees paid for. It wasn't "free" - someone's paying their tuitions and fees, it's just that the expenses aren't coming out of their own pocket.

It's like saying American waitresses are working "for free" because they aren't on salary but instead rely on tips for a living. This is simply not true; tips are just a different economic system to get paid. They aren't working "for free" because if they did they would just show up and, well, work for free without any tips. But they don't. They know they're going to get paid - not by the restaurant - but by the customers. 

NCAA DI was an amateur league - not entirely, but the players were. The coaches were professional because they did get paid and they were in charge of essentially running a business within a business (team within a department within a university). Then NIL came along and amateur economists tried to convince other that the NCAA DI was never an amateur league, and that the student-athletes are "finally" getting what they deserve - a share of the millions of dollars brought in by their labor. But that's relatively bizarre way to put it. It's straight up straw man when framing the realties of a DI student-athlete. Students aren't employed by the university in the way a coach is - they're "employed" differently.

The millions of dollars brought in by the student-athletes labor was never theirs to begin with because it was never contracted. It never said "if sports program brings in X amount of money you get Y percent of profit." Nope. Never existed. What was promised was a no tuition and fee enforced education in exchange for being a DI athlete. That was the promise. Add in academic tutors, separate living quarters for athletes, separate workout quarters for you, healthcare, and transportation to and from for away games. These are the "benefits." 

I will admit a DI student-athlete is an "in-between" type of existence between an amateur and a professional, but it's more amateur than professional. You can't be an unofficial professional though. With that logic, graduate students are unofficial professionals/professors. People who play in recreation sports leagues are unofficial professionals because there's no one who promised to pay them $10 for an hour for their time after work to play dodgeball in the city's park league. 

So when I'm on a sports forum seeing posts confidently saying that the student-athletes are "just getting what they're worth" (totally subjective) and, minutes later, discovering that they liked a video posted by another commentator about being pro-union, I know I'm dealing with people who are just surface thinkers. These are the same people who have no issue with students saying DI athletes are slaves because they "work for free." I say this because extolling the nature of free markets and being pro-union is contradictory; it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. Reality says you can't do that. These are the same people that try to display their own integrity by "facing the grittiness of reality" but they want to tear down controversial statues. They want to erase mascots because they're politically incorrect. 

Unpopular Opinion: I Enjoy Experiencing Other Cultures. I Don't Like the Traveling Involved.

Especially if it's more than a five hour flight and I'm adjusting to more than five hours of time zone difference. 

Here's my stance: I enjoy experiencing other cultures - not so much the travel that's usually intertwined to it. 

An 8 hour flight to a Western European country? Nope, not fun at all. Experiencing cities such as Galway and Edinburgh and Seville? That's cool and fun. 

How about a 10+ hour plane ride to Southeast Asia, say to Japan or the Philippines? Put me in deep sleep and wake me up when we get there please. 

New Zealand? Kenya? Syria? Can I teleport? 

Jet lag also sucks.

I'm sort of a rule follower so though I will rue the idea of customs I'll bite my tongue and deal with an hour or two waiting and dealing with custom officers. I still wish I can transport 20 ounces of jam from some Central European country to the States but rules say no. 

When people write down in their bios, or when asked about their interests, passions or hobbies, often times "travel" is listed, at least in the past two decades or so. I will probably never put "travel" down. Instead, maybe be "experiencing other cultures" or something similar to that. But "travel"? Yuck. 

Don't get me started on how antithetical the people who are into the whole "bike/walk/public transportation ew cars and highways" love traveling given the amount of queuing and time wasted up in the air can take. Just don't. Just don't get me started. If I take the car to the groceries it's because it's a necessity. If I take the car to accomplish some errands it's because it's a necessity. If I take the plane to travel it's because travel (where "travel" is used technically for leisure) it's a choice; one can live without travel for a couple of years. 

Does this make me a neanderthal? Maybe. Uncultured? Who cares. 

Traveling is tiring. It often sucks and it isn't glamorous. Jet setting sucks for 99% of the people who aren't put into first class or don't have the logistics planned and their tickets paid by someone else, especially transatlantic and transcontinental trips. 

Traveling is literally getting on a flying bus where I'm stuck in the air for 4+ hours with a bunch of strangers in a weirdly shaped oblong metal tube darting through the air. It's a cool concept; it works, but it's a drag. I rode the bus many times and it ain't fun. It's a necessity because I can't teleport. 

But dang, the Aran Islands are beautiful though, and a proper English pub is a great place to settle down for a pint. It's just getting there. 

Biden the so-called "Good" Catholic.

 I knew it was all just a facade to build an image.

Why expanding government services to aid newborns won't greatly reduce abortion rates.

 Ever since the overturn of Roe v Wade, many well-meaning Christians, whether Catholic or not, have immediately been turning to the talking point that if US government would just have better healthcare (they usually mean universal healthcare) and expanded on more childcare services (i.e. universal Early Childhood Education, maternity centers) that it would incentivize women to keep their baby. 

Full disclose: I am empathetic to ECE being integrated nationwide. 

One poster on Reddit said that since Roe v Wade is now gone that Catholics should now vote for Democrats because of their support for government aid and social services; these Catholics only saw the Republican Party as a one voter issue where their Pro-Life stance was the only thing that kept them from voting for the Democrats. (These probably are the ones that also suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

I don't buy into this argument. If we look at this map even countries that have universal healthcare have a relatively high abortion rates per capita (i.e. UK, France, Sweden, Canada). Even then, welfare in the States and Canada has incentivize that if you fall below a certain annual salary threshold you're given money for each child you have. I know this because one I work in social services and two I have a family who's a physician that, at one time, had a patient that kept on having kids because she was being paid by the Canadian government for each kid since she was on welfare. She's the typical case of being a welfare queen.

I wish Milton Friedman was alive so he would talk some sense into these "gotta vote Democrat now because of the social services" Catholics/Christians. This isn't to say that Friedman was pro-life, but he surely question the assumptions of those who trust the Big Government for an easier life. 

Many who get abortions do get it because the baby is an inconvenience. Yes, they may list down "socioeconomic instability" or whatever as a the main driver to abort but like all surveys the question is flawed and not all-encompassing. Many in the States that abort are poor, are in their twenties and already have at least one other kid according to the Guttmacher Institute. If we put to and two together this tells me that many aren't making smart decisions - to withhold sex until marriage or to have sex when one is not ovulating. 

Furthermore, women have listed the following why they decided to get an abortion -

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

The "could not afford a baby now" is a relatively vague statement since it gives no standard on what income would be acceptable to have and raise a child. It's presented as a single factor where other factors are not put into affect such as responsibility and relationship problems.

As mentioned, if other countries such as Sweden, a rather socially "progressive" country with, ironically, a more restrictive abortion policy in comparison to the States, has a relatively high abortion rate per capita with universal healthcare then the connection between robust government social services in regards to newborns and health are specious at best. 

But what drives a woman to reject abortion? Not the aid of the state if I bet my money, but conscious and values.