CHAPTER 9 – ENTROPY
DATE: MARCH 10th, 7 A.U. (AFTER UNIFICATION) LOCATION: SOL SYSTEM, ABOARD UTRN INDOMITABLE WILL
CAPTAIN HENRY O’TOOLE
"Ah, there you are Commander. Your message said there was something you wanted to talk with me about, right?" Henry asked as his executive officer approached the system map.
“Aye Captain, now's a good a time as any. As you know, the rate of disciplinary incidents has more than tripled in the last two weeks. We've had six fistfights, one near strangling, a few dozen counts of sexual harassment amongst different parties, and a few more incidents of a nature that I would rather not get into for fear of derailing the point of this conversation. I need additional resources to allocate towards ship internal security. With your permission, I'd like to borrow some of our more trusted marines to help the MA's out on their off shifts.” Commander Alvarez asked.
“Yeah, of course, take what you need to nip this in the bud. I can't say I'm entirely surprised; we expected a certain amount of this with the stresses of FTL travel. With everyone cooped up like this, maybe we should brainstorm some new outlets for the crew. Were there any specific incidents I need to get involved with?” Henry replied as he looked up from the list of updates and reports on his own console.
“No, I have it covered. It's just the regs state I need to ask permission to use marines for internal security matters.” The Commander waved it off.
“Excellent, continue to keep me in the loop then. Can I ask you a question?” Henry took the opportunity to ask something that had been bothering him.
“You just did. Hah! Just kidding, put the axe away boy! Now what would you like to know?” He said with a twinkle in his eye.
“I've seen your file, well, the parts that weren’t redacted anyway. If anything, I should be taking your orders! I mean, you're the Space Wolf! Nobody came even close to the number of ships captured or destroyed than you in the early days of the battle for the belt. Why would they want me to be captain when they had someone like you coming along the whole time? Why aren't you a captain anymore? By all right this should be your command, not mine.” Henry asked, after taking one last look around to verify they were still alone around the system map.
Commander Alvarez seemed stunned for a moment before he settled into a more pensive look.
“Listen, son, you're all full of the vigor and high passions of youth. By that I mean you've got a certain fire and aggression in you, yet I've seen you keep it balanced by wit and wisdom. You are a perfect match for the job, even if you could use some more real world experience. With some guidance, you'll do just fine, if you can keep strict standards for yourself and crew and a cool head when things get tough. I... got a lot of damn good men and women killed in an impossible situation when we lost the Michigan-II, and I never truly got over it. No amount of medals, captured enemy ships, or the fact that I've saved many more lives than I lost can make up for that. I finally found peace with that, but that peace required that I relieve myself of any chance of future command. My legacy, for better or worse, is set in stone. Joining this expedition gives me another chance at adjusting the scales without breaking my former vows, even if the only people who will ever know it are here on the voyage with us.”
“So, you claim you have no aims or desires for leadership, but here you are a mere heartbeat away from it.” Henry said, carefully studying his executive officer's every reaction.
“My time for glory is mostly gone, yours is at your feet before you. To the world, I am retired in comfort and isolation. In reality you have me here to help make your will law. You can relax. I already turned down command of this expedition. I was plan A, why do you think they had to scramble to find you? I will take command of this mission only if you are incapable of doing so yourself, Sir. In the meantime, let my experience and whatever wisdom I can offer guide you.”
An emergency alert snapped both of their attention out of their conversation. "There's a fire in one of the officer's cabins?!" Henry’s pulse quickened as he referenced the map to find which one.
“Fuck, it started in Chantal’s room!” Henry said, horrified.
“I've got the CIC under control. Go on and get her, I'll ensure help is on the way!”
“Thank you, Commander.” Henry called back over his shoulder as he rushed for the quick lift.
The officer cabins were the in the very next deck overhead, so he was able to arrive quickly and break into a sprint. The ship shifted as it dodged some antimatter, causing Henry to slip and scramble back to his feet. As he rounded the corner he saw her door was closed and the keypad powered was off. He could hear thumps and muffled screaming from within the room.
"HANG ON CHANTAL, I'M COMING!" Henry shouted in the hope that she could hear him as he pried at the manual override panel.
Two modified Paladin exo-combat armor suits rounded the corner seconds later with a hospitalman trailing behind pushing a medical cart.
"WE'LL TAKE IT FROM HERE, SIR." A speaker-amplified voice spoke from behind him.
One of the Paladin suits accessed the manual control override and forced the door open enough for the other suit to reach in and pry it the rest of the way open as smoke plumed into the corridor. The second suit charged into the room with its flood lights on as a water cannon mounted on the right wrist sprayed flame retardant from a pack on its back. The first suit abandoned the door control and entered, emerging moments later with Chantal awake and coughing from inside the darkened door frame. She was quickly ushered into cleaner air, set gently down, wrapped in a blanket, and was quickly attended to by a hospitalman who began to check her vitals.
Relief flooded Henry’s mind as his adrenaline surge broke against the wall of worry he had built up during his mad dash from the CIC.
“Baby you came for me! I honestly thought I was going to die for a moment in there." She pulled him into a tight embrace as she wept in cathartic release.
"Of course I did! I couldn't stand to lose you, especially not over something like this. So, what the hell happened in there?"
"Well you know me, I was all burning the midnight oil and then I smelled smoke! Then there were some sparks, the outlet pops then whoosh! My computer station and my desk are all ablaze along with half my notes, then the damned door wouldn't work! I had to drop to the floor under the smoke and pound on the door in hopes that someone would hear me. God, it was horrible... I don't think I've ever been so scared in my life." She replied with a deep shudder.
"You're safe now, it's going to be alright."
"I know, but what about my work?" She replied with a forlorn look back at her smoke damaged room.
"What about your work?"
"As you know, I lost a ton of it just now, but what’s worse is I don't even have the ability to recover them! Remember how I lost my backup drive last week? Like, I know I packed it and it is not here anywhere! It’s like some sick cosmic joke on me or something. Sorry! Gotta keep it positive, girl! I get to rethink my last few weeks’ worth of work from scratch... that was almost positive! I probably have most of this recoverable from email sent box backups. Fuck, what do you do if there's no good silver lining?” Chantal bemoaned.
Henry couldn’t help himself but laugh for a second, while his girlfriend stared at him, waiting for a response.
“I’m sorry, is this funny to you or something?”
“No, no of course not. This might be one of those times where the only silver lining is that you're alive. Plus, if anyone can remember and rebuild their notes, you can." Henry smiled down at her.
“Fine, fine, at least I am alive. I was only breathing smoke for a few seconds after all.” She said, rolling her eyes. “Thank you for rushing down here right away anyway, it means a lot. You're amazing, you know.”
Henry smiled, slightly uncomfortable for a moment, so he changed the subject.
“I do my best... Anyway, it seems like these electrical issues seem to be getting worse instead of better. Whatever patch these clowns have slapped on my ship to get her to pass inspection is clearly coming undone. What do you think is going on here?” Henry asked in mild exasperation.
“Honestly, I can’t tell you without digging into the systems myself, which I would rather avoid. My plate is full enough as it is right now, especially having to reproduce so much of my own work now. This ship has kilometers of power cables running throughout it, after all, and you have an entire loyal, capable team down there in electrical, so it should only be a matter of time before they sort it out for you. Let them do their jobs without harassing them too much, please?”
Henry felt a little irked at her for not giving him credit to know not to go overboard, but he stowed it, seeing as she was right.
“The crew has been under a lot of stress, too, having technical issues with the lights going out, or losing power to workstations. More than a few people have tried to convince me to turn us around and return to S33 for a more in-depth refit and repair cycle before we try the mission again. So far, everyone has accepted the fact that we are not turning back now without much argument, but I fear what may happen if these issues are seen as getting worse. Our orders are clear, though, we must continue the journey.” Henry said, uncomfortable with the implications, even if he didn't dare voice it.
“You should get on the Q-Comm to report the fire to S33. Maybe they will order us back to base after this.” She offered, looking for a solution to an impossible problem.
“Good idea, at least the Q-Comm is still working. It’s incredible to me those particles maintained their entanglement once we passed through the baryonic barrier. That alone has been a huge morale boost, being able to contact home base with no time lag.” Henry replied.
“It’s incredible to you because you only have a basic grasp of the science, hon. But that’s alright, very few people truly understand it. That’s in part what you have me here for anyway. Einstein called the effect spooky action from a distance; I always liked that line.”
Henry ran his fingers through his hair and looked at Chantal, with a shake of his head and a smile.
“Listen, Henry, I just had a crazy stressful experience and I need to unwind. Plus, I haven’t slept in almost a day, so I am bone tired. Let’s go to bed, huh? What do you say doc, am I clear to go?” Chantal asked.
The hospitalman closed her eyes and shook her head before responding. "Yes, you are cleared to rest, only to rest, do you understand me?"
Chantal mouthed a thank you before she took Henry by the hand and led him off to the captain’s quarters. Henry felt no desire to fight it, nor flaw with her reasoning. Sleep sounded good, really good. Plus, he was about an hour from the start of his sleep shift anyway, and Alvarez had the CIC well covered. The lights flickered again, but Henry very purposefully ignored it.
“Hey, since we have a little time and we are both a little wound up, Why don’t we take a shower together real quick?” She said with genuine enthusiasm and a wink.
“Madam, I like the way you think.” The couple raced just a bit faster than regulations would have liked, and arrived at his door in record speed. Inside the room they fell upon each other in great passion and need, stripping each other out of their BDU’s and underclothes. Henry tossed a giggling Chantal onto the bed, kissing her neck and nibbling on her ear causing her to purr in anticipation before he moved down her chest, past her navel, and then eagerly began to move his kisses in between her thighs.
“Hah…. I haven’t showered. Are you sure? Oooookay! I think…. Hah…. Okay.” She said breathlessly as Henry began to work his tongue until she began to shiver and squirm before she cried out and melted in his mouth.
“Enough, please, I can’t take it anymore! Just fuck me already!” Chantal pulled herself together enough to beg for it. Henry stood rigid and ready and set himself to granting her request, first slowly, and with a growing intensity. She once more began to squirm as he paid close attention to her hip’s cues, knowing very well by now what she liked.
As she climaxed again, Henry lifted her from the bed and pushed her up against the wall, and then bent her over his desk for a bit before he could take it no longer and they finished together.
“Holy shit… my legs aren’t gonna work for a bit after that one. Help me up?” Chantal said in between shallow breaths.
“Yes, ma’am. It would be my pleasure.” Henry said as he helped her to her feet and into the shower, staying in longer than was strictly necessary.
Henry left the steam first, once more thankful that his cabin included its own small bathroom, rather than a communal one. Being captain had its perks, after all. He grabbed a towel and wrapped it around his waist, then handed another to Chantal who gratefully accepted it before it dropped to the ground as she stared straight past him.
“Henry!" She squeaked as she pointed past him.
"What?" Henry asked, confused.
"Henry, someone was in here!”
On their bathroom mirror, wiped from the steam were the words TURN BACK.
Henry's blood ran cold and his adrenaline spiked him into overdrive. He waved Chantal back into the shower and put his finger to his lips. She nodded then wrapped herself in her retrieved towel and dropped to the shower floor with her arms wrapped around her knees, whimpering slightly. Henry moved silently along the wall, watching the visible half of his room for any movement. He then burst round the door frame, only to find everything perfectly, precisely as they had left it. The shock of finding nothing collided with the spike of his adrenaline surge, which only fed his growing unease.
“There’s nobody here!” Henry called out after checking the closet, the only other place someone could have hidden.
“Did you lock the door?” Chantal asked, her mind already working on the mystery.
“I set the security protocol to auto lock every time it closes.”
“Paul. We need to talk to Paul.” Chantal said, squeezing her BDU’s up over her hips with a few hops. Henry pulled on his undershirt before tossing over hers.
“Why would we want to bring that weasel into this?” Henry asked, incredulous at to how he could possibly help.
“Because he has access to the surveillance tapes, why else?”
Henry stared at Chantal, brimming with rage, trying his hardest to keep it isolated to Paul over the invasion of his privacy.
“Did you just say surveillance tapes!?!” Henry asked in an icy tone. “That does it, I’m going to strangle him.” Henry said, moving with a purpose toward the door.
“Stop. Turn around and give me a kiss. I already disabled the video cameras, at least all the ones I could find. He has audio at best, even that I doubt. What he does have that I want is the data from the motion sensor that he had installed just in case you found the more obvious bugs. Unfortunately, I sabotaged its effectiveness by blocking the sensor with dense foam, but there might be enough of something to give us a clue."
“How in the hell do you know about all of this anyway, and why the hell didn’t you tell me?!” Henry roared.
“This entire enterprise is run by an intelligence agency; how can you not have seen that one coming a mile away? I have gotten very good at catching bugs over the years. Just because I expect the invasion of privacy to be happening, doesn’t mean I have to make it easy on them.” She replied firmly while staring him in the eyes with raised eyebrows.
“You’re incredible, I love you.” Henry blurted out before he could catch himself. Chantal beamed and tackled him to the bed sitting on his lap.
“What took you so long? Never mind, don’t answer that. I love you too, I have wanted to say that one for a while now.”
“You know these things aren’t easy for me. I had to be sure, I also didn’t want to mess anything up. We need to be able to work together even if we had turned out to be a bad couple.” Henry admitted, Chantal made an show as she thought it over, but she then smiled and helped Henry to his feet.
“Alright, my captain. You speak great wisdom. While I have certainly felt, and thoroughly enjoyed, the depths of your passion, it is really nice to hear about it too. I do think it makes it all the better that you rule said passion with reason. It’s one of the many things I love about you.” She said, laying her hand over his heart.
Henry took her other hand and kissed it before replying. “I think above all, I wanted to make sure that I didn’t take you for granted, nor suffer the same in reverse. A wise woman once gave me some great advice there that I have taken to heart.”
“Okay, Romeo, maybe you have a better handle on these things than you think. Now… Let’s go interrogate Paul.” Chantal had a fire in her eyes that Henry was loving very much at that moment.
“I have wanted to turn the screws on that spook for a while now.” Henry smiled as he spoke, and he opened up the connection to the ship’s intranet through his neural implant to send a message.
MEET ME IN YOUR QUARTERS IN 5 MINUTES FOR A DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE – CPT. O'TOOLE
“That ought to get him there and alone.” Henry smirked. “Let’s go.”
Together, they made their way to Paul’s equivalent-sized quarters, which he had somehow secured for himself in the ship design to help facilitate his role as the official thorn in Henry’s paw. I guess being the captain’s handler has its perks as well. Henry’s eye twitched at the corner.
After making them wait far too long, Paul opened the door and gesturing them inside. The door closed and Paul turned towards them, narrowing his eyes, studying them both.
“Is this about the fire?” Paul asked before Henry punched the weasel right in the diaphragm, forcing him to gasp for air. The look of shock on his face as he bent forwards was priceless.
“What the fuck, Henry!?” Paul managed to choke out after a minute between gasps.
“Relax, I didn’t do any permanent damage, yet.” Henry said, Paul for just a second showed actual fear in his eyes before he sneered in defiance. “Oh? That got your attention, did it? Why were you spying on me?” Henry growled.
Paul closed his eyes, dropped his head, and began to laugh before Henry grabbed him by the throat and slammed him into the wall. Foolishly, Paul even then kept laughing amidst the gasping. So Henry squeezed until Paul started slapping his arm, looking genuine fear once more growing across his face.
“Orders… I was following orders!” Paul managed to say amidst gasps and coughs.
“I thought it might be something like that. You're going to open up those files, now, and you're going to show me everything.” Henry said, dropping him to his feet at last.
“Fucking hell, Henry, I thought you of all people would have anticipated this was going to be the case. Do you think the people who made this all possible would simply let you fly around the most dangerous, advanced warship in human history without some insurance?”
“Don’t try and weasel out of your own personal culpability here. You may also want to think back to other people who were “only following orders” while performing acts they knew were wrong before you wave that line around like some get out of jail free card.” The fact that he had nothing to say spoke volumes.
“You should have told me Paul.” Henry growled.
“That defeats the purpose! Plus, your girlfriend sabotaged them all before we ever left S33 anyway, and once more after! That type of tech doesn’t just grow on trees you know, and I don’t have an unlimited supply. You should be thanking me for covering for her and reporting back like things are normal!” Paul shouted in indignation.
“This is pointless, show me the files from around fifteen minutes ago, motion trackers, thermals, anything you have that's not blocked or sabotaged.” Henry commanded. Paul’s eyes narrowed, but after a long moment he huffed and closed his eyes. Paul then sat down at his station and fired it up.
“Like I said, I've got practically nothing. No video, muffled audio and readings from what I assume to be a faulty motion sensor, that’s it. What are we looking for?”
“Chantal and I were, well, together. After we got out of the shower we saw that someone had written turn back in the condensation on the bathroom mirror. Only problem? My door auto locks when closed and only opens for my biometrics. That is why all of this even came up in the first place.”
“Motherfucker. That's a whole heap of bad news.” Paul said. Henry merely nodded, paying rather more attention to the screen to see if he could catch Paul in a lie about the extent of the spying.
“There’s nothing. No disturbances in the air that would even remotely resemble human movement between you two getting in the shower and you charging into your bedroom. With the noise of the shower and the distance to the microphone, there is nothing I can discern that is anomalous. You can see it all right here for yourself.”
Henry found himself even more confused and alarmed than before.
“How is that possible? Look again, run through some filters or something. There must be some evidence somewhere!”
“Alright, relax, I will get to work on this and get you a report by the end of C shift. In the meantime, you look like a mess. Get some sleep man! I can take care of it from here. Oh, and I want you to remember that I forgave you quite magnanimously for that little episode back there where you attacked me.” Henry and Chantal gave each other a look as Paul spoke.
“Wasn’t gonna apologize anyway, you had it coming. I’m going to hit the rack. I expect that report to be detailed and ready when I get up.” Henry took Chantal by the hand, and they left together, not waiting for a response.
“What a snake. Did you see him in there? Zero guilt or recognition whatsoever about spying like that. It just makes my skin crawl. Gives me bad memories.” Chantal said, turning pensive and quiet.
“Do you want to talk about it?” Henry asked, seeing that there was something clearly bothering her.
“I… had an uncle that lived with us from time to time and he would spy on me when I was dressing, try and sneak looks in the shower, stuff like that. Never touched me or anyone else that I know of, thank god, but man did it screw me up a bit still. Played havoc with my sense of security and even my sanity, never being quite sure it was real. I wish I had said something, but I was afraid everyone would think I was overreacting or imagining it. I saw it in his eyes though, that look of... predatory lust. At least I didn't see anything like that in Paul's eyes. To this day it makes my skin crawl.”
“Good God, I can see how alone you must have felt in the middle of all that.” He squeezed her hand, she smiled up at him.
“Yeah, that was one of the hardest parts. I don’t think Paul is some raging pervert or anything, but it concerns me how normal it was to him. Even if he isn’t being a creep with it, as if we can take his claims to be covering for me at face value. There is still no way I am going to let him have easy access to intimate videos of us, if I can possibly help it.” Chantal said before adding, “I’ll be all right, don’t worry about me. Let’s just get some sleep.”
Henry put his palm against the biometric scanner outside his room and the door slid open for them. They definitely needed some sleep after the emotional roller coaster of the past few hours, and the irresistible warm embrace of his bed called for him. The Q-Comm report could wait until he woke, he decided. Better to have the electrical inspection done too.
I WANT A FULL REPORT AND INSPECTION PERFORMED ON THE ELECTRICAL FIRE IN CHANTAL’S ROOM BY THE START OF A SHIFT. – CAPT. O'TOOLE
Good enough. Henry thought as he sent the message. Now he could sleep. The chief would handle it.
SEVERAL HOURS LATER…
DATE : MARCH 10th, 7 A.U. LOCATION: SOL SYSTEM, ABOARD UTRN INDOMITABLE WILL
FIREMAN APPRENTICE SARAH CALLAHAN
It'll be back again tonight...
Sarah’s haunted thoughts repeated like a mantra. She had to be ready, but how? Her skin crawled and itched, the long sleeves of her BDU’s prevented her from being able to do anything about the painful sensation from the inflamed scratches they hid. She blearily rubbed at her sunken eyes, and she drained the rest of her coffee. All the numbers on the screen had started bleeding in together and her eyes hurt horribly, with the throbbing pain in her abdomen only compounding her misery.
“My god, Sarah, you look a wreck, hon. How have you been sleeping?” Yvonne, her shift partner asked, with concern in her voice.
“I have a monster tension headache, if the meds are going to kick in, I hope it’s soon. Can you check my math? I need to get out of these white lights for a few minutes. Close my eyes for a bit, something, anything. I've been having nightmares again.” Sarah felt good, being able to admit it, and Yvonne had long since proven her friendship, so it was easier to actually speak.
“Yeah, no prob. As soon as I am done here I will check your readings and we can get out of here. Do you mean nightmares from the invasion?” Yvonne asked, carefully picking her words and tone.
“Kind of the same general themes, but different. Everything is going wrong, like the worst possible outcomes of my worst nightmares are all combining together. Like, it feels malicious, I don't know, its hard to explain...” Sarah said, bleakly.
“That’s hard, I am sorry. You need a shower, and an uninterrupted nap. Sleep deprivation plays all kinds of hell on the body and mind. I had a friend who went through an insomniac phase so extreme he would go days without sleeping. Wound up in the hospital after trying to drive to work while hallucinating his dead fiancée was sitting in the passenger seat screaming at him to watch out. Wound up rear-ending the car in front of him. Thank God he lived to tell the tale, but that is why it worries me to see you like this.” Yvonne planted her hand on Sarah’s shoulder as she told the story.
“Yikes, I think I slept like two hours into my sleep shift before I started having the nightmares again, woke up, and passed in and out of some restless sleep. It got really bad around oh three hundred. There were sounds... noises like scratching and a loud bang, and the shadows were moving. I just kept feeling like I was being watched, but everyone else seemed to be having disturbed sleep in their bunks. God, it was a creepy feeling.” Sarah took a moment to compose herself.
“I know how crazy this will sound, maybe that I am sleep deprived and likely hallucinating like your friend, but just hear me out. There was something there Yvonne, in the dark at the edge of perception, I could feel it. I also know I wasn’t the only one tossing and turning either. I could also hear scratchy whispering, too. I just hid, strapped in under the weighted blanket. At some point I slept some more, I must have, but not for what felt like a few stressful and draining hours. I'm just making a total mess of explaining this, aren’t I?”
“No, you're fine, girl! I am sorry that happened, my dorm has been pretty quiet, but I have always slept like a rock. Is there anything I can do?”
“I could use a hug.” Sarah said, which caused Yvonne to laugh, breaking some of the tension. They embraced warmly for a good minute, which did wonders for relieving some of the headache and her black mood.
“Thanks, Yvonne, I know it’s all in my head and it’s a vicious feedback cycle due to lack of quality sleep. Thanks for listening without calling me crazy.“ Sarah said, shying away from the last thing she hadn’t the courage to say.
She didn’t dare mention how she had hidden under the covers as she felt it get near. How she had felt something pushing on the mattress. How as her fear peaked, she herself peeked over the covers to find nothing there just to have the oppressive feeling evaporate along with the sensation of pressure by her feet. Her dorm mates all seemed to stop stirring after that, and only then did the nightmares stop for her that night. By then she was left with barely enough time for one last short sleep cycle before the start of A shift that very morning. This was a secret she would have to keep to herself, nobody would believe her anyway.
“I think I'll ask the Chief for a break from my duties today to rest and to visit med bay. Maybe they can give me something to help catch back up on my sleep.” Sarah said.
“Good idea, can I come with? I’ll back you up.” Yvonne said. Sarah smiled at her friend before she nodded at her before they checked off the last of their duties on site and headed away to find the Chief.

Re-done version of a previous fanscript bc I wanted to add more classic literature - enjoy :) (also, this one is set in season 2 and stars the Powercast girls almost exclusively, it was a lot of fun)
Scene: Wednesday and Enid are hanging about in their room, both reading - first upside down in her armchair, latter lying on her belly across her bed. There's a knock on the door.
Enid: Come in!
Bianca: (peeks in) Hey.
They greet her. Thing waves at her friendlily.
Bianca: (entering) Just wanted to drop by and ask if there's been any news from the town.
Wednesday: None. No new sighthings at all.
Bianca: Ah. Alright. (she waits for another moment, then turns to leave)
Enid: Wait.
Bianca turns to her.
Enid: You can stay for a bit.
Bianca: Actually, I have to ... (she stills for a moment, thinking) ... you know what, that's fine.
She walks over to Enid, who pats on the bed next to her, smiling. She sits down, fetching her phone.
Bianca: The fencing club is getting new equipment today, but ... I'll see it soon enough. I'll ask Davinia and Yoko to unpack it. If they don't mind.
Enid: (shrugs) Quality couple time, time for you to relax a bit. I think you can use it.
Bianca: What do you mean?
Enid: (nods at her hands holding the phone - her nailbeds are sore from picking at them)
Bianca: (a little somber) That's nothing.
Enid looks at her, then finishes typing something on her phone and moves to the back of the bed as the conversation continues
Wednesday: I'm afraid they still won't lift the curfew any time soon.
Bianca: (chuckles) Oh, no - that stays until next year, I'd say.
Enid: (getting back up, sitting down next to Bianca) Come on, I can't see this.
She unscrews a small, new tube of salve and takes Bianca's right hand, starting to apply it on the wounds. Bianca looks at her surprised, and her hand trembles for a moment - but then she decides to not pull it away. She looks ahead, sighing a little. Then she turns to her other hand - Thing presses it, avoiding the sore parts. She smiles a little.
Bianca: I didn't expect this level of friendliness in this room.
Wednesday: Insufferable, isn't it?
Enid: (snorts)
Wednesday: Do you want to say something?
Enid: (looking at her) Do you want me to?
They stare at each other for a moment, then first turns back to her book. Enid smiles, turning back to her work while Bianca holds back laughter.
Bianca: What are you reading?
Wednesday: (closes the book, revealing it to be "Catching Fire", the second Hunger Games installment)
Bianca: (does something between a gasp and a chuckle) Mainstream and YA? Addams, I'm shocked!
Wednesday: Enid suggested it.
Enid: I'm reading Dracula meanwhile.
Bianca: Really?
Enid: (chuckles) Didn't expect what I'd be given.
Wednesday: Journal entries and newspaper articles I thought would be to her taste. I'm glad I didn't have to search for long.
Bianca:: Huh. To be honest, reading letters or retold stories in a book always sounded with me really well.
Wednesday: I did like that element in Frankenstein. And Pride and Prejudice.
Bianca: (chuckles) No way. Jane Austen too, Addams? Do tell.
Wednesday: (looks at her)
Bianca: And not the added Zombies version, right? You went for the original.
Wednesday: Nothing more painful that reading about the english upper class. Besides, am I not allowed to like well-written dialogue?
Bianca: I was going to say, Austen is pretty smart usually.
Wednesday: The characters are for sure. Usually.
Enid: Also, Austen likes her protagonists to learn something without them being stupid.
Bianca: You don’t see that granted one often for sure.
Enid: It’s like the old Barbie movies. (she’s done with Bianca’s left hand and moves on to the right one)
Wednesday: What?
Bianca: Said by someone who’s never seen one.
Wednesday: Do tell yourself now, Barclay.
Bianca: Barbie’s usually a pretty good role model. I can’t remember an installment where she’s not clever or very hands-on when it comes to the plot.
Enid: Word. People come to her for help, and she can usually provide it until she needs some herself.
Wednesday: Huh.
Enid: Plus, those movies’ humour is underrated.
Bianca: Indeed. Still can’t get over the added bloopers.
Enid: Love those. (finishes applying the salve on her other hand)
Bianca: (quietly) Thank you.
Enid smiles. Bianca lies backwards onto the bed, looking at them.
Enid: (murmurs) Yeah, good idea.
She lies down next to her and they’re all quiet for a moment. Then Enid moves to turn around so she can lean her heels against the wall a bit. Bianca follows suit, relaxing.
Wednesday: I once came across a book called “Winter’s Bone”. The protagonist also can take care of herself really well, but she needs the help of others to get by still, and to solve her father’s disappearance.
Bianca: I remember that one. It’s really about the need of people of each other.
Wednesday: (looks at her) Interesting perspective.
Bianca: (shrugs) The whole story happens because she’s fighting to keep her loved ones, and protect them. And everyone else kinda rely on each other as well. Even when they try to get by themselves, they still need each other. That has an effect on the story a few significant times.
Enid: Yeah…
Bianca: (chuckles)
Wednesday: What now?
Bianca: I just remembered the movie adaptation was what launched the main actress into the Hunger Games.
Wednesday: Really? (looks at the book) Fitting.
Enid: Really was. And they stuck to the books like crazy. (she sighs, looking at the Dracula book lying around nearby) Wish that was more normal.
Bianca: (follows her look) I think I remember they ruined Lucy, right?
Enid: Mina as well. For the usual reasons. Too strong and active and too nice respectively. Bianca: Hm.
They lie on the bed for a moment, looking at the ceiling.
Wednesday: We could have less of that. (thinks a moment) Enid?
Enid: Yes?
Wednesday: (lifts up her book) What did this series’ adaptation do concerning Prim?
Enid: Well, they didn’t add her skill and ability to focus as a healer that her mother has too in film 1, but they added it significantly in the second one… so you get the impression Prim matured this way when Katniss was absent, which still works for me.
Bianca: And that she’s just not a hunter like her sister, but a really needed healer. Which is great. The series does point out that everyone is good at something else. And how much Katniss needs her as the story goes on. By the end, their roles are almost reversed.
Wednesday: Slow down, I’m still in part 2.
Bianca: (chuckles) Sorry.
Enid: I’m glad you enjoy it this much.
Bianca: (raises her hands) While we’re at healing, this feels really good.
Enid: Yeah – I’m more of a healer than a hunter too, I guess. (sighs)
Bianca: Well, didn’t we just say that’s a good thing?
Enid looks at her, then smiles. Bianca returns it.
Bianca: *(shows her her hands) Case in point.
Enid: You know what else is healing? *(she fetches her phone) Any preferences for a playlist?
Wednesday: (sighs) Headphones.
Enid: Headphones?
Wednesday: (sighs again) Headphones please.
Enid: (smiles)
Bianca: Maybe some Disney?
Enid: (beams at her) Coming right up!
They relax back on the bed and Enid starts the playlist. They stare at the ceiling. The first song comes on – it’s “Mother knows best” from Rapunzel. They both cringe their noses. After a moment, Enid fetches her phone back and seeks the shuffle button.
Enid: Do you mind?
Bianca: No! Really not.
They look at each other for a moment – not saying anything, but seeing something in the other they understand. Enid presses the button and cuts the song of at “Mother knows-“. The next one is the reprise of “Part of your world” from “The Little Mermaid”. They both relax at it a little. Wednesday looks over at them, with a gentle look, and turns back to her book. After a moment however, she decides to fetch her own headphones and get some white noise to reading. Outside, Xavier opens the door to the balcony and comes walking towards the window. He looks to see if the girls are home, and sees Enid and Bianca chilling on the bed, having closed their eyes. As he looks closer, surprised and even raising an eyebrow at this, Thing slams against the glass flatly. He jumps back startled. The hand signals him to go away.
Xavier: Why?
Thing: (smacks the glass twice firmly)
Xavier: Ugh, fine! (he walks away)
Inside, the girls stir a little. They remove their headphones.
Enid: Did you hear something?
Wednesday and Bianca: (hear the door slam in the distance and exchange a look) No.
They go back to their music.

I (32F) have a friend (33nb) who I've known for 15 years. We never lived close to each other and our contact over the years was rather lose with us keeping up with each other's lives over Twitter and me visiting them every two years or so. In all those years we got along well and never had an argument. They once told me that no matter how long we go without talking, they always feel welcome by me, and I used to refer to them as "one of my favourite human beings".
This changed when we started to talk more regularly three years ago. They had started playing DnD and had asked me to join their new campaign, which I did, and which lead to us spending several evenings a week hanging out over on Discord in a voicecall with two other friends of theirs.
Over time I realised that they were not as nice to me as they used to be. Making fun of me, making wrong assumptions about me, just generally often not being very nice to me. Early on they reached out twice, saying they thought they were overstepping and being too mean to me. I told them I appreciated them reaching out but did not say much more to it. I know that's on me, I should have made it very clear at that point how their comments made me feel. I don't handle conflict well and failed to make my position clear when they reached out. So instead of saying "Yes, you are right, your behaviour really hurts me. Please stop." I basically said "Thank you for reaching out about this, I appreciate it." Probably not very helpful.
And then it just kept getting worse. It got to a point where I constantly felt like I was walking on eggshells, that no matter what I said they would read something into it and make assumptions about me that weren't true. They are a very eloquent person whereas I am not and I feel like I have to be super careful about what I say because they will understand it in a different way from how I meant it. I don't generally have a problem with misunderstandings, it's the way they assume things about me that I find hurtful and the way they lash out at me that I find difficult to handle. They have a very short fuse and will immediately raise their voice, which I don't deal with well. And the constant accusations are getting to me. When someone says something that seems off to me or seems to contradict what they had said earlier, the last thing I suspect is that this person is trying to deceive me. Especially not if they're my friend. I will think I misheard or they phrased it weirdly or we use a certain word in different ways... basically I will first go through any possibility that is not about the other person purposefully trying to be hurtful or deceiving. With them it's like no matter what I say they will come to the worst possible conclusion. To me it often seems like they have a certain interpretation of things and to them that is the only valid interpretation.
For example:
I told them how I was really struggling with the fact that with working full-time and my friends all living in different cities, I rarely get to go out and actually do something with the people I like and how my whole life had turned into "working, sleeping, working, sleeping..." and how this was really taking a toll on me.
A couple of days after I told them that we were trying to look for a date for a DnD session and I told them I wasn't available on the date they suggested because I had to travel to my hometown because of a family member's birthday. To which they mocked me over how I was "always socialising" which then in turn made me upset and I told them how untrue that was and that never getting to socialise was currently my whole problem. To which they raised their voice and said that I was constantly socialising and accused me of gaslighting them for saying otherwise. I took a look at my calender in which I note down appointments and social stuff and told them how I could literally see in my calender that I had met up with friends TWICE in the past six weeks.
Eventually it turned out that we use the term "socialising" very differently. To me socialising means "voluntarily doing things with people that I like". To them apparently socialising means anything one does with other people, so family meetings that you go to despite not really wanting to but feel obliged to attend fall under socialising as well as any kind of appointment.
I often get the impression that we define things differently and when I say something that doesn't make sense to them they immediately feel like I'm trying to manipulate them or am questioning their perception of things, and they they lash out and attack me, which in turn hurts me. Whether this is actually what is happening, I don't know... it's just how the way it seems to me sometimes.
Some other examples are how they called me a "capitalistic bunny" for saying that I don't hate my job and how my manager is very nice. Because apparently being glad about the fact that something that I have to do to literally be able to provide for myself is not as bad as it could be. (Fun fact: they were working for Amazon at that point. Which I guess is okay as long as you mention three times a day how much you hate it there.) Or how they accused me of thinking my own experiences are universally applicable as a response to me literally saying: "I noticed that every time I visited you it was a lot colder than where I live. So I was wondering, is it generally colder in your area or was it a coincidence that it was colder every time I visited so far?"
I don't know how to talk to them about how their behaviour hurts me when they misinterpret everything that I say and immediately lash at me or withdraw and spend the next few hours thinking everyone hates them.
It's not even that I think they don't care about hurting me or that they wouldn't be willing to change. It's that them not saying those things out loud anymore would not change the fact that they still think them. Them keeping these thoughts to themselves would not mean they don't think that way anymore, just that they are not saying these things out loud anymore.
I think the only possible way to fix this would be to talk to them. But I don't know how to fix something with communication when communication is the whole problem. So I don't feel comfortable confronting them and am looking for other ways to change my own behaviour to make this situation more tolerable. I don't know how to make my boundaries clear and clearing up misunderstandings without them feeling attacked and lashing out at me.
Over the past few weeks I've started to withdraw and stopped reaching out to them. And I've been feeling so much better. I got to spend more time with some other friends again and realised that it's possible to spend several hours with other people without constantly having to worry about how what I say might be understood, without constantly feeling judged and without getting mocked or my actions being interpreted in the worst and most inaccurate way possible.
I feel guilty for feeling this way, like I'm making this person out to be the most insufferable person ever and like I'm just dropping them for getting too exhausting to deal with. I feel like if I were a good friend I would reach out and try to fix it. I'm not even giving them a chance to explain their point of view. Maybe they see all this very differently, maybe to them I am the one who is hurting them. I'm just so tired of not being able to be around this person without ending up feeling bad.
Tl;dr I feel like my friend is treating me very poorly and I don't know how to deal with it I don't feel comfortable confronting them about it but don't know how to act in this situation. I want to fix it without confronting them and don't know how.

Hi there,
After he had rejected several therapists (claiming each one incompetent or in some other negative judgement), my husband finally stuck to one and had been seeing that psychologist for several weeks until she diagnosed him with BPD. Promptly after that diagnosis, he stopped seeing her and denied the diagnosis. He has instead likened to the idea of being autistic without a professional evaluation and for sure has adhd though I understand all three can often coexist/be confused for one another etc etc. My issue lies in his inability to coherently comprehend what I say without perceiving it as an attack or manipulating it as if I am saying something else entirely. Additionally, he gets violent and hurts himself or damages property while he blames me for something as seemingly harmless as me asking if he added water to a recipe or casually asking if he’d done a task he said he’d do two weeks ago (that made him flip a chair and also threaten to stab himself with a steak knife). I think I need more resources to understand if reactions like this is common in BPD, or if this is even what he has because I feel like i’m the one who is crazy. I’ve neutrally brought up a conversation about how he might reconsider his medication because of his outbursts (lots of broken glass in our house lately, and he even punched the screen of my imac, my traumatized brain can’t even begin to tell you what triggered that) but now he dismisses me and then walks away and then screams “Don’t talk at my back!” or reengages in the conversation by making up what I said and when I correct him, he yells “I don’t want to talk to you! Stop baiting me into conversation!” and i’m left baffled and at a complete loss. He also has had trouble holding down jobs (he’ll make up a reason why it’s suddenly abhorrent then jump ship) and recently admitted to “his dreams of wanting to be a teacher” and went on to say he has “connections to teach a college course” and when I asked if he’s ever taught before (which, to my knowledge, is a big no), I suggested maybe he should try and get more opportunities to do that, to which he responded, screaming that I was “belittling his dreams”, and the next day he argued that he meant PLANS and not DREAMS, but there already was a hole in the wall and the actual topic didn’t matter anymore because he didn’t hear me when I voiced that I felt scared or that he was denying and accusing me of things that weren’t accurate (which I learned recently is DARVO, and he does it all the time). Deepest apologies for the immense detail but my current dive to find solace and resources about NPD (because after that episode, I get love-bombed) OR BPD and my spouse’s ability to pedantically take “clinical information” and vocabulary and use it out of context or in sentences to defend or deny and reverse it on me is truly making me question myself, like, is this my fault? 7 years of marriage and I’ve tried all the ways to speak to him kindly, patiently, directly, use a neutral tone - everything I say, he’ll try to tone police or question as if it’s an attack or entirely fabricate and avoid the point. Even if it’s something about how I’m feeling, suddenly we’re having a therapy session about him. I really want to bring him in to somewhere so he can get some professional insight where a space can be held where I don’t have to referee for both of us and someone else can point out the ways he’s communicating in unhealthy ways and call out things that are triggering (Space hasn’t been held for me for so long and the stress and pain is finally metaphysically showing up as nerve damage in my body. When he shows up in public, he acts as if he’s normal and charismatic and fine and I just feel like the out of context scorned wife, when for example, prior to us arriving, he’s just punched a hole in the wall before we left the house. Any resources would help. I am personally a high functioning and award-winning in my career with goals of becoming a pilot to fight fires and do rescue (which has entirely been put on hold because we seem to be tending to him a lot lately) and the more accolades, and goals I plan out and the more I achieve in my own personal career, the more my spouse seems to act terribly towards me. Despite me trying to encourage him to look inwards and seek his own purpose. Lots more details to divulge but the intention is the same, to gain resources in how common his reactions are, how one keeps themselves sane if or when their partner is like this, if you noticed almost parabolic mood swings (he was the perfect husband two weeks ago) and ultimately, for me not be overcome by whatever it is he has. Thanks for your time.

Hi All,
High school teacher here. I committed myself to be part of a rangers club. We usually do activities that teaches students how to camp and how to survive in the wild. The head teacher was desperate for male staff so I told them I’ll do it. School finishes at 2:40pm. This club goes from 3 to 5.
I only been apart of this club for 4 weeks and realising now I no longer can commit to this club. It taking too much of my personal life and I’m not enjoying it as much as I thought.
However, because I joined they were able to expand the club and allow more students to join. Originally they said no to new members but with me joining an additional 10 students have joined.
How do I get out of this pickle? I know I should be an adult and just tell the leader I can no longer do this but I said I’ll stay until the end of the year and I’m quitting after 4 weeks!!!! The leader let 10 new students join because of me!!! Help!

New DM article quotes Megsy calling the semi-royal tour 'fantastic' and saying it will be the 'first of many memorable trips'. If they are planning more fake "royal" tours to countries they want to grift from, then IMO it really is time to nix those titles and for Parliament to get on with it and put them into abeyance. Things should never have got this far in the first place......the lines are now blurred with regards to these two and how other countries view them.
Charles MUST separate family from royalty and make a clear statement that these two can jaunt around the world as much as they want, but they are NOT to do it as a Duke and Duchess and certainly not to be announced at functions and receptions with their HRH titles. Why hasn't this not already been done, it just seems insane.
IMO part of the problem is Fergie - she retained her title and has used it on her books. So would it look hypocritical if they stripped the Sussex titles but never stripped Fergie's? I know that Fergie has never bad mouthed the royals and not done any faux royal tours but she still does monetize her title by having it on her books, appearing on shopping channels, weight loss products etc. The Sewer Squad will immediately bring this up if the Sussex titles were nixed.

Originally posted in a GHB subreddit. But, basically any subreddit with GHB in the title seems to be more focused on recreational use, so reposting here.
My therapist mentioned GHB as a highly effective drug for narcolepsy. Have been looking into it but not really getting a good feel for it. So, figured I'd just ask some questions. Which hopefully will be a benefit for other people starting or considering GHB. Only looking for therapeutic responses, not recreational.

1. Have seen it mentioned that low dose is stimulating and higher dose is sedative. Have seen a number of references for it being taken at night to improve sleep quality. But, do some people take a lower dose during the day to combat times when they are sleepy during the day with a stimulating effect?
2. Should you expect mood altering side effects that will likely go away at first? Or is that just how some people respond?
3. Which drug and form do people prefer and which do they not like and why? Is there a general go to rule of thumb for GHB prescribing? Are there non GHB narcolepsy drugs that people prefer, over or in combination with GHB?
4. Seen withdrawal mentioned a lot when stopping the medication. Is that to be expected? Does it happen at all dosage levels or more common at higher doses? How difficult can withdrawal be for prescribed doses?
5. Experience when combined with other drugs for comorbidities? Such as Adderall, Modafinil, Armodafinil, Strattera, Guanfacine. Or drugs for disorders that may be relevant to other people like for bi-polar, anxiety, depression, autism spectrum, etc.?
6. How much potential for long term side effects? For example, at prescribed doses Adderall gave me anhedonia, decreased energy levels, worse executive function, high cortisol, weight gain, hormone imbalances, reduced motivation, low libido, muted emotions. Which are not usually mentioned about Adderall.
7. Any other information you think is relevant for a GHB noob or someone considering it as a therapeutic option?

Does anyone else exaggerate their pain so that people actually believe you? I've had chronic back pain for 11 years that started on a backpacking trip, it happened out of nowhere I was just hiking down the trail like normal then boom back pain that hasn't stopped since, basically the skin on about a baseball size area on my upper back to the left of my spine is completely numb but deeper underneath the skin it is very painful, it feels like something is lodged in there and needs to be pulled out (I don't think there's actually anything in there but that's the sensation if that makes sense). I think I might have slipped or pulled something but so far I've been unsuccessful in getting a diagnosis or treatment. I can't even get a doctor to consider looking into it the most I've gotten is "hmm that's weird you should exercise more" which I already do plenty of it's one of the reasons that I often get dismissed because "how could youl feel that bad but still be able to do X or Y activity". I get through the harder days with weed and liqour (I know this isn't the right answer) to make it more bearable but I havent been for a bit and can't again for a while since my wife is about to have our baby and I need to be able to drive her to the hospital and take care of a newborn sober. My wife and a few friends know about it and are very supportive and help me when it's too painful for me to function but other than them basically no one believes that I'm in agony most days because I don't look like it. I've started to exaggerate my symptoms since I don't look naturally "hurt" enough. I have good days and sometimes even good weeks where the pain is reduced however the numbness is always there, the numbness doesn't affect me much it's more annoying than anything. When I can I like to be active, backpacking, hiking, weightlifting, mountain biking, just a lot of high intensity activities that seem to make people think I can't be in pain since I'm being that active, I can do these things when the pain is bad but only if I'm high or drunk so that the pain doesn't bother me. It's gotten to the point where I make it a point multiple times a day to complain about it and just look miserable, basically act like I did back when the pain first started before I learned how to control how I reacted to it. It's not for sympathy or anything but it feels good when the people around me acknowledge what I'm going through rather than downplay it because i don't look like I'm in pain. Tbh it's getting mentally exhausting but I don't want to go back to being told "you don't look like it's that bad" all the time. Does anyone else do this?

....
https://zenodo.org/records/6210570
https://ibb.co/0V8yCGB
https://ibb.co/JvncMQ4
https://ibb.co/pLc96p2
https://ibb.co/NVq0CFk
https://ibb.co/sFy0xDY
She looks like Jennifer Doudna, literally:
https://ibb.co/gD5rPy9
What if?
What if the lipo-nanoparticles and the ACE2 gene-silencing CRISPR RNA-gene-drive 'inoculation' program are part of Club of Rome's Odum's "reduce America's population by 2/3rds hopefully voluntarily by 2030?" What if this was and will become Utopia? What if Deagel's 2025 population statistics that accounts for this 2/3rds population reduction, which was sponsored by Kissinger, the Rockefeller foundation and Edwin Deagle Jr., knows more about this?
https://ibb.co/Pr9YffM

"The analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 structure in light of the functioning of the CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12a and CasX mechanism suggests that the virus is man-made through genetic modification. [...] Covid is not acting like other viruses and many various symptoms in human body have been observed. [...] The modifications in the backbone’s phosphate group induced by CRISPR engineering create a highly imbalanced state. The entropy and therefore the repulsion forces strongly dominate in this type of virus."

What if they gave you AIDS and sterilized you? What if the optimal CRISPR-Cas9 lock-on markers out of any nGG, ie markers for future gene editing, was part of the plan? And hopefully none of this is sexually transmissible. Sticking a peen in an Extinction Level Event... is it worth the risk? We should ask Ian this. He did look grayer after screwing Jessica.
https://ibb.co/bvcf1F7
https://ibb.co/b2JcCS1
https://ibb.co/3TK03M0
https://ibb.co/HPs7nX8
https://ibb.co/Rvb0ZDB
Utopia (UK):

• "SARS doesn't exist."
  
• "The planet can support only 1 billion."
  
• "We leave 5 to 8% unaffected."
  
• "Janus consists of protein and an amino-acid." (CRISPR)
  

I chose my own people."

Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from BOTH Virus and Vaccine mRNA

https://mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

The modification of mRNA with N1-methylpseudouridine for increased stability leads to the production of spike proteins for months.'

Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 - withdrawn (January 2020)

https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1

Amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag."

What's the common denominator? European DNA. The injection is ethnically adjusted to deplete ACE2-expression of European DNA but not those carry k26r polymorphism, ie. Ashkenazi J's and the Amish.
https://ibb.co/2KNmdCH
Where is ACE2 located? Also in mitochondria, the cell's battery. Why cancer? CRISPR, mitochondria and p53 disruption, oxidative stress. Once modRNA gets into cells, they're released to hijack cell's machinery to produce full-spike proteins, endlessly. Spike proteins downregulate ACE2-protein expression of mitochondrias and silence p53 the guardian of genome. And the CRISPR Cas9/Cas12a awaits for gRNA to act.
An idea of giving cells the instructions to synthesize pathogenic spike-protein to develop immunity is imbecilic in the first place. But urging people to get one without a prescription promising getting back to normal (that's been destroyed for this purpose) - a crime.
But Rockefeller's (Rockefellos) Cub of Rome would never think of doing anything like this. The network in Utopia is fictional, right? Read Kissinger report, read the Jaffe memo!
Rockefeller's Population Council:

"fertility control agent' designed to lower fertility in the society by 5 to 75% less than a present birth rate; to be included in water supply in urban areas." (1969).

https://ibb.co/7gJBNwq
https://ibb.co/Wk9CWhz
https://ibb.co/kQkHmkk
https://ibb.co/Q8dw9QN
https://ibb.co/drTNH1n
https://ibb.co/N2p6vms
You see, just like women refused to smoke in public until they saw it as a form of liberation. Covid is our liberation. If things go to plan. We won't know for many years.
The public would never support the most powerful men working to reduce the numbers of the "lower class" until we saw OURSELVES as a deadly virus to the planet. That's been the goal from the get-go.
In the population control document that Rockefellers sponsored it suggests multiple methods of involuntary sterilization such as adding “fertility control agents” to water supplies, temporary sterilization of all young women “via time-capsule contraceptives,” and compulsory sterilization of men with three or more children.
Those are just ideas they floated, it's not like they ever funded or implemented them. It's not like they made an anti-fertility vaccine! They did.

Its not like they ever went thru with an actual involuntary roll out of this tho, we woulda heard about it!

You might have seen this 2014 story "debunked." In 2014, Kenyan doctors found traces of HCG in Tetanus vaccines being distributed by WHO/funded by Gates. Why is this important?
HCG is the same pregnancy hormone that is used in conjunction with Tetanus in that SAME ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION FUNDED INDIAN INFERTILITY VACCINE. Doctors in the Philippines and Mexico also claimed to have found HCG in their WHO distributed Tetanus vaccines in the 90s (they did). The WHO didn't fund the development of that Indian vaccine (BECAUSE THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION DID)!
https://ibb.co/cyXwns8
https://ibb.co/y5QVdc6
https://ibb.co/bXNNmhS
https://ibb.co/bKfNqrf
It is important to note that this Anti-fertility vaccine has been in development since 1988 thru 2014 to this day.
It does appear as if the Rockefellers have implemented their "involuntary fertility control" and have used Tetanus vaccines as cover to test this pet project of theirs, but that's speculation.
The goal of the network also reminds me of "Children of Men," originally published in 1992 and set in England in 2021.
https://ibb.co/V3fyDKH

"Armageddon Begins - Russian Detonates Nuclear Bomb, Kazakhstan Annihilated." The newspaper reads in opening of the film.
Children of Men' (2006) Plot - In the year 2027, after 18 years of total human infertility, war and global depression have pushed society to the point of collapse as humanity faces extinction.

Did you know that "Children of Men" was written by Phyllis Dorothy James, referencing Pat Frank's "Mr. Adam" and "Alas, Babylon" written back in 1950s?
Given the quality of sperm declining due to fluoride, chemical exposure and such, and mRNA-medicine affecting fertility of men and women, that's the exact match.
Joel E Cohen, the Rockefeller University Professor on Population heavily acknowledged the significant drop in fertility rate of white populations in US and EU, explaining driven immigration to sustain the level and boost 'economic prosperity.' As the saying goes, Just as the Egyptians made G‑d’s firstborn (the Israelities) suffer, G‑d punished - measure for measure - the Egyptians’ firstborn. All the firstborn would lose the life-energy that until then kept them alive." This is the 188th Mitzvah and accompanies the gene drive which is Janus to a T. Bye, bye!
https://ibb.co/y41N4NK
https://ibb.co/vBdPw1x
https://ibb.co/rdtvXDH

Angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) play a dominant role in fertility (2013):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24152441/
To solve population bomb, just sterilize the entire world with:

• release bioengineered disease binding and exploiting ACE2
  
• silence gene expression through CRISPR-Cas9 mRNA
  

https://ibb.co/L69ngrf
https://ibb.co/mFdwT9S
https://ibb.co/7bzKWZj
https://ibb.co/Y2Bmtp4
https://ibb.co/rbT0hbf
https://ibb.co/Cs33JWK
https://ibb.co/9wS8cfz
https://ibb.co/WpQcVZH
https://ibb.co/XZWnnqF
https://ibb.co/ZcHB5D6
https://ibb.co/tMS5nMq
https://ibb.co/FKggvdg
Presented for your viewing:
https://ibb.co/wrz03dk
https://ibb.co/JWZt7bL
https://ibb.co/qnSyYVp

CRISPCas9 gene drives in genetically variable and nonrandomly mating wild populations (2017)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28560324/

A drive targeting Ace2 might therefore conceivably be used for direct population suppression.”

DARPA invests $100m in gene-drive technology - new gene-editing technology, which many people fear could lead to deliberate and unintended damage on a huge scale (2017):
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2017/12/darpa-invests-100-million-in-gene-drive-technology/…
Harvard, Wyss Institute - CRISPR-Cas9: Gene-drive:
https://wyss.harvard.edu/media-post/crispr-cas9-gene-drives/

Little is known about the role of p53 in the regulation of ACE2. An earlier study reported that p53 suppresses the replication of coronavirus through ACE2 degradation in humans.”

https://researchgate.net/publication/350180861_A_tissue-_and_gender-specific_regulation_of_the_SARS-CoV-2_receptor_ACE2_by_p53_in_pigs
https://ibb.co/wzxtjHh
https://ibb.co/8mJ455t
And to conclude, Epstein associate George Church, who said arranged marriages using gene sequencing as Haredim have been doing is ideal; Epstein associate Martin Nowak - Evolutionary dynamics of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives (2016)...
https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/057281v1.full
...with Matthew Liao, want to design humans using gene editing.
https://ibb.co/QdqsfyJ
https://ibb.co/zQv8rDs
https://ibb.co/PQtDgvh
https://ibb.co/jDQkB7x
https://ibb.co/TR023k6
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.12519

The Rockefeller Foundation - Bionics, Transhumanism, and the End of Evolution (2019):

https://foresightfordevelopment.org/video-library/bionics-transhumanism-and-the-end-of-evolution
Here's the end; how fun it will be, how fun, indeed:
https://ibb.co/8rbdNzY
In Grant's drawings it says they put the ghost cell in the buffalo and the man eats the buffalo and rots. People won't physically rot from consuming the food, they'll just be sterilized when they take the vaccine, or they will, because Prions.
Like I'm crazy so don't take too much of what is posted here that seriously, but do if your life depends on it.
Utopia experiments manuscript was the plot for 2025. I'm shaking in my socks.

My 15 week old baby is formula fed, she tends to take 120ml-150ml bottles every 3 hours, during the night it's every 5 hours. This totals around 800-900ml a day.
The last 5 days she's taking 50-90mls with each bottle. I've tried feeding more regularly with smaller amounts but she'll take about 10ml and I've tried leaving longer gaps but giving more formula, when I've given it 4 hourly she'll still take 60-90ml. She has just lost interest in eating and I don't know why. It's causing me so much stress.
Now she's getting between 550-600mls a day. I spoke to the health visitor yesterday, she said it could be thrush but there's no white lining on her tongue, it could be a sore throat but she's totally fine in herself. Does anyone have any suggestion on what the cause could be and how I can improve her eating without force feeding her?
She is definitely dribbling much more, which likely means the beginning of teething, if this is this cause how can I get her to eat like she was before?

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

Bit of a long post but I need to get it off my chest because honestly I don't know what to do. I've never been in this type of situation, therefore any advice from someone whos been through something similar would be helpful. Anyway, bit of backstory.
My gf (20) and I (23) met early December last year and we really hit it off. The problem was that she was in a relationship then, but they broke up not long after ( I honestly think it wasn't because of me, they had problems long before we met) and we started talking and hanging out more often. We either texted or talked on facetime entire day because I am in Switzerland and she is in Croatia. It got to a point where she told me point blank that she had feelings for me but she wasn't ready for a relationship just yet, which I was ok with (keep in mind this was a month and a half after they broke up). Anyway, we started planning to go on a trip for a couple of days as soon as I got back home. I asked her where she wanted to go and picked the best place to stay and planned the entire thing perfectly, I even offered to take some of her friends with us just so she could feel more comfortable (in the end her sister and her boyfriend went with us). The two of us were holding hands and were next to one another entire time, we slept in the same bed, we even made out and had sex when we were alone one night (no alcohol or something similar, just passion I think). And honestly I liked that because we were each others little secret at the time. She even stayed at the house I rented for 7 days because we wanted to spend as much time as we could together. It started to feel like a beginning of a relationship but we didn't wanna say it at the time, we just wanted to be together entire time. Call it honeymoon phase if you will, but we both knew we had feelings for one another. I even met her family and her friends and had dinner with them. It was almost perfect.
This is where magic stops and reality hits. A couple of days ago she wanted to go through my phone, which I was fine with because I have nothing to hide, no porn, no other girls, no ig models, nothing. Just my dogs, family, friends and work, so I said fine as long as I can go through yours, which she reluctantly agreed. And that's when I saw it. Not only has she been texting some other guy, she's been actively seeing him and telling him how much she needs him, but she slept with him the same night and day I was driving 1200km just to see her and take her and her sister on that trip that we planned for so long. But that's not even the best part. At the same time we were planning our trip, that guy booked some cheap ass apartment and texted her the date saying I will see you then. ON THE SAME NIGHT I WAS DRIVING JUST TO SEE HER. And she responded with "I can't wait". But what bothers me is that that guy put in so little effort. I remember on Valentines day we wished each other happy Valentines, and I even sent her a bouquet of roses, just to show her that I really do care about her and I wanted to be there with her right now but can't because of work, she asked him that same fucking day if he wanted to go for a walk. And he said "no, I'm going to play games with my friends, I told you we will meet on the 22.". AND SHE WAS HEARTBROKEN BUT SHE STILL CHASED HIM. HOW PATHETIC DO BOTH OF THEM NEED TO BE? And the entire time she was texting him and going out with him, she was telling me how much she misses me, and how she can't wait for me to come. Entire time while I was there for her, spending days and nights talking and laughing with her, sending her flowers every week ( FLOWERS THAT SHE SHOWED HIM), that guy was putting in so little effort and reaping all the rewards. What's funny is after they slept together she bragged to all of her friends and said how they fucked twice and no protection cuz duh. Same friends that she introduced me to, that said that they are all cheering for me. They all knew, they all saw how much I cared for her and nobody said a thing. Then when I put the phone down and asked her to explain herself, only thing she said was "that was before we were official, and it was just for one night". The same girl that sent me a checklist of her perfect boyfriend where it stands "NEEDS TO BE LOYAL" does something like that and then says it was before we were official. She didn't even show a little bit of remorse, only thing she said was "you need to get over it". How???
I'm sorry for this long post, but my mind is just going crazy right now. I just needed a place to vent, a place where I can get some advice on what to do. Thank you for any advice😅
TL;DR; : Am I getting played? Or was that really a mistake on her part?

Hi, I've posted on here a bunch about how difficult communicating with my hospital has been (ever since coming here honestly).
I truly feel like my emotional and physical needs aren't been taken into consideration here and I feel like I am talking to a wall every time I try get in contact with them. I feel physically sick at this point and have intense anxiety attacks over this.
If anyone here has seen any of my previous posts you'd know I've been wrestling with them to give me an oral prep to take for the scope but they kept insisting on the enema like it was life or death. After alot of back and forth emails and them being really unclear, I finally had enough and called their number so I could have a proper verbal conversation. This was on Friday, so 6 days before my scope. Suddenly there was no issue anymore about this and they had no problem sending the prescription. This calmed my nerves somewhat. I called my pharmacy yesterday (2 days before scope) if they could get my prescription ready for me to pick up and I was told it wasn't even sent.
I sent an email and left a voicemail but it was 5pm at that point and they would only see/listen to them tomorrow between 9am and 12pm.
I left another voicemail there now, it's 11.50am. I honestly am considering asking to reschedule if they don't reply by 2pm, so that if needed someone else who needs it can take my spot and I'll get my prep sent so I can actually attend my scope calm and not a nervous mess. I haven't been able to stop crying since finding out yesterday, because not only does this bring back all the stress I've had dealing with this hospital but it also unfortunately it makes me stress even more about the scope itself and due to this it brings back alot of the trauma that I've suffered that is making this all so difficult in the first place.

Hi all,
I was recently diagnosed with OCD at age 40 and am just beginning to learn about it. Not sure if this is possible, but I’m trying to determine what is a “real” problem by identifying non-OCD stress from stress that results from the condition.
One major issue is the mental load at home. I have only been married 3 years and know my issue impacts loads of folks who do not have OCD - even resulting in “walk away wife syndrome” so I’m trying to mentally separate the tasks that really matter from those that, to the average person, may seem unreasonable or due to my unrealistic standards.
I feel at least 90% responsible for: 1) cleaning and 2) home maintenance and improvement. Apparently I “see” way more things that need to be done. I also care WAY more about whether or not these things actually get done. Most of it genuinely does not bother my spouse- things are quite good enough as-is.
I’ve discussed this with my spouse on multiple occasions and he has slightly improved with his contributions to cleaning, which is appreciated. On the negative side, he still doesn’t clean THAT much and doesn’t seem to even notice things like dirty windows, appliances, baseboards, shower curtains, dust, floors, etc.
On the home maintenance and improvement side of things , almost everything is up to me. Landscaping, pulling weeds, (except he mows) - basically anything that maintains or makes the yard look nice is on my plate. He doesn’t notice things like: 1) exterior trim is peeling (a lot) and needs painting, 2) the brush is extremely overgrown around the property, 3) the windows are dirty, 4)the front door knob is broken, 5) one of our sinks needs replaced. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Improvements that we’ve discussed (adding a fence, home addition, etc) will never happen until I figure them out. He’s talked about a fence for 2 years.
It seems like the things I mention are just normal things that partners would expect and contribute to. I am so frustrated and disappointed about these things that I’m wondering if a divorce will ultimately be the answer.
I don’t mean for the post to be a rant! I wonder if anyone else in the community has dealt with similar issues and how they handled it. Do these expectations seem a bit high and I should chill TFO? I’ve talked to my spouse about this several times- even make lists- so I’m not hopeful that it will change meaningfully.
Thanks for your time and any feedback!
Edit: typos

It's now in repair by Nintendo. How much time does it take for Nintendo to get the docking station back by me? Also when the docking station isn't repairable I get my money back. But can I buy an official oled docking station.
Another question I put a shielded utp cable in the TV and the utp cable of Nintendo is near the outlet of the TV utp cable. Could a shielded cable damage the the dockingstation?

I guess I'm also looking for a bit of encouragement here, this has been a very solo journey.
Stats:
27F at 5'4. Started at 84kg(185lb), now down to 72kg(158lb). Current goal is 60kg(132lb).
So far, I think I've actually been doing the easy bit, I think it's going to get a lot harder soon...
I started out by cutting out full fat soda. And then most of the weight loss so far has been cutting out extra calories that I didn't really want to eat. I stopped eating out of boredom, learnt how to stop eating when I was satisfied, stopped forcing myself to finish my plate, and when I craved an unhealthy food I'd question if that was what I REALLY wanted or if I was trying to soothe myself and actually the snack would just make me feel guilty. I do allow myself bad snacks, but only if I actually really do want the snack and it will bring me joy.
My problem is, now I've done that I've reached my current plateau for how much I eat. Sadly I am a pretty picky eater who doesn't like vegetables all that much, and does enjoy carbs and chocolate. If I continue cutting now I'll be getting rid of things I genuinely enjoy.
Currently I'm eating about 2000kcal a day, which I guess is roughly my maintenance for 72kg. My goal is to get down to 1600kcal. (This is all calculated with a sedentary lifestyle, I don't tend to factor in exercise because it gives me a bit of leeway with calorie counting, and while I walk a lot and have a physical job I don't do any big sports that would burn lots of cals)
So wanted to ask for some advice on how to continue my weight loss from here. I'm trying to take this slow and steady, so the changes will be permanent.

I guess I'm also looking for a bit of encouragement here, this has been a very solo journey.
Stats:
27F at 5'4. Started at 84kg(185lb), now down to 72kg(158lb). Current goal is 60kg(132lb).
So far, I think I've actually been doing the easy bit, I think it's going to get a lot harder soon...
I started out by cutting out full fat soda. And then most of the weight loss so far has been cutting out extra calories that I didn't really want to eat. I stopped eating out of boredom, learnt how to stop eating when I was satisfied, stopped forcing myself to finish my plate, and when I craved an unhealthy food I'd question if that was what I REALLY wanted or if I was trying to soothe myself and actually the snack would just make me feel guilty. I do allow myself bad snacks, but only if I actually really do want the snack and it will bring me joy.
My problem is, now I've done that I've reached my current plateau for how much I eat. Sadly I am a pretty picky eater who doesn't like vegetables all that much, and does enjoy carbs and chocolate. If I continue cutting now I'll be getting rid of things I genuinely enjoy.
Currently I'm eating about 2000kcal a day, which I guess is roughly my maintenance for 72kg. My goal is to get down to 1600kcal. (This is all calculated with a sedentary lifestyle, I don't tend to factor in exercise because it gives me a bit of leeway with calorie counting, and while I walk a lot and have a physical job I don't do any big sports that would burn lots of cals)
So wanted to ask for some advice on how to continue my weight loss from here. I'm trying to take this slow and steady, so the changes will be permanent.

Hi,
I (34M) have had a long journey with hip issues, resulting in an arthroscopy for labral and cartilage cleanup in the hip in Sept 2018.
One of my most persistent issues during both pre and post op was weakness in the core and glutes, that I couldn't get rid of no matter how much time I spend in the gym or with a PT.
Recently I tried a HIFEM machine (the main brand is Emsculpt), which is like a 10x more powerful TENS unit - it has been incredibly helpful, and I have been able to build muscle in 3 weeks that I was never able to do it the 6 years since my issue started.
The machine forces your muscles to contract fully, they brand it as doing 20,000 sit ups/squats in 30 mins, which sounds ridiculous, but my results suggest it is actually kinda true.
I wanted to post about it here, as I have not seen it previously mentioned, and it has been a complete gamchanger for me, in terms of core/glute strength. If you have persistent weakness, I recommend having a look - it doesn't directly address pain, but does help all the supporting muscles.
You can get it done generally at beauty clinics, with sessions for the premium brand (Emsculpt) are as expensive as $500(!) per session, but with a bit of searching, normally $100-120 per session is possible, esp if you want to just try it out. Cheaper machines (EMS Zero, Renasculpt) do practically exactly the same for much cheaper rates, so no real need to go premium.
You can also purchase a home machine for ~$2,500, if you find it actually helps, which is what what I am doing, but recommend trying a couple of sessions to see if you actually think it will help.
It has been so useful to me, I felt I had to put it on the forum, in case anyone searches in the future.

Which section should I start my test with? When should I take my break? These are two of the most common questions that we get from our students. Having worked with 1000+ students, we strongly believe that starting with your strongest section (risk minimization strategy) not only gives you the best chance to succeed (if you prepare accordingly) but also leverages the section and the question adaptiveness aspect of the GMAT Focus Edition (GFE) to your advantage.

Why does the section order matter?

There are 6 possible section orders on the GMAT Focus Edition. There are two fundamental strategies we can use while choosing section order:
Maximize comfort: I need to be 100% while attempting verbal, while I can do quite well in Quant even when I am 90%. People who feel that way, generally choose the “Maximize comfort” strategy and start their attempt with Verbal, which in many instances also seems to be the score maximization strategy. These students execute the order as V>Q>DI or V > DI> Q.
Minimize Risk: In addition to being question adaptive, the GMAT is also section adaptive. This means that if you do well on section 1, you start section 2 at a slightly higher difficulty level. Likewise, if you do poorly on section 1, you start section 2 at a lower difficulty level.
Since the question adaptive nature of the GMAT penalizes you much more if you make a mistake on easy questions, students who follow the risk minimization strategy start with their strongest section first and then move on to their weaker sections. This means that a student whose strengths are in the order Q>V> DI will first start with Quant, then move on to Verbal, and finally DI.

At e-GMAT, we have been recommending the “Minimize Risk” Strategy since March.

There are two advantages of this strategy:

1. Reduces risk: Your GMAT Score is driven by your sectional sum of scores, your strongest section is (generally) the biggest contributor to your GMAT score. By starting with your strongest section, you ensure that your strongest section (the starting point) is not impacted by the poor performance in the weaker section. Second, you start your weaker section at a slightly higher level, which gives you some leeway if you are prone to making early mistakes.
2. Potentially gives you an additional break: GMAT Focus only allows one break. However, if you get done with your strongest section ahead of time (which many people are likely to do), you potentially get an additional 5 minutes to close your eyes and meditate. This ensures that you go to the next section refreshed.

What does this strategy guard against?

This strategy guards against you (the student) making careless mistakes on easy questions early on in the test – the kind of questions that the GMAT penalizes you the most on. Note, this strategy is not a substitute for ability. You must have the ability to score high for this strategy to work. This just ensures that you give the test a fair chance to evaluate and estimate that ability.

This strategy requires practice!

Before I end the article, I want to emphasize on a few things:

1. This strategy is not a substitute for building ability. It merely ensures that you are able to express your ability on the test.
2. Executing this strategy requires that you successfully implement this on at least three mocks.

Again, I just want to emphasize that this is just a strategy that we recommend. It is not endorsed by the GMAC. I hope you find this useful.

TLDR I am overly obsessed with cleaning my own body parts using surface cleaning products that are not meant to be applied to the human skin and pose risk to physical health. I am not sure how to put this to a stop, as not acting upon the respective intrusive thoughts makes me go through almost panic-like fear of spreading supposed "germs" to others or getting "infected".
Hello Anxiety,
I believe a similar post had already existed here before, but I've been kind of having this extremely weird paranoid obsession with cleaning everything and the lengths I go to fulfill it might be putting my physical health to a potential risk.
Every time when I touch (or get touched) by an object that is perceived by me to be "dirty" (as in, covered in germs) or, otherwise, of unknown cleanliness, I immediately start cleaning my body part that came in contact with it, usually the hands. The problem is that the methods I utilize to do so do not limit themselves to just rushing to the nearest bathroom and washing my hands with water and soap, but rather involve highly toxic cleaning substances.
One of these chemical substances are Clorox wipes, which are based on bleach and contain a significant amount of different toxic ingredients apart from it. These wipes are meant to be for cleaning surfaces and possess no harm in such case, but their use on human skin is highly discouraged, as it might lead to a burn. This, however, hasn't stopped me from doing otherwise.
Even though I consciously understand the risks involved using such product on the human body, I keep using them, as if I don't, I start getting instrusive thoughts of getting "infected" and/or potentially spreading germs to others or something. These intrusive thoughts essentially lead me to using exclusively Clorox, as even regular hand-washing doesn't stop this crazy obsession (in this case, I start panicking that the regular soap and water combo is not enough + for body parts that aren't arms, I am basically either forced to go take a full-blown shower or rely on a portable solution instead).
One of these examples would be me using Clorox wipes on my hair and head because I was taking a taxi and as I was putting on my hood it supposedly touched the seats (!!). No matter how absurd this might sound, not acting upon this thought immediately leads to more of those springing up until the rest of my day.
Recently I used Clorox on a part of my foot (as I tripped on my shoes at home by accident as I was roaming the corridor) and I did indeed get a proper burn. The part of the skin affected does not feel any touch anymore as a result and is bright red and painful. Because of the pain and of the fact that pressing on it makes it temporarily white immediately, it certainly is no third-degree burn and is not really much to worry about.
However, this situation is already a huge warning to me that I better quit with Clorox wipes and stop using any cleaning products not meant for the skin entirely, especially now that I've overused them literally as I've been applying them to different body parts every single day.
Yet I don't know how to stop - even consciously understanding all the risks involved, I literally cannot stop using those as otherwise I get stressed and start panicking and combating so is a struggle on its own that takes a solid few hours just to calm down to the slightest to avoid acting upon intrusive cleaning obsession thoughts.
I wonder what could be some good ways to put this to a stop. Not buying Clorox is a good option, but it doesn't help with the intrusive thoughts and the overall low mood as follows. I used to be able to distract myself with something else in the past to make these go away, but it is becoming harder to do so with every single day.
Any ideas on this? Thank you very much in advance!