Hey everyone, this post is long, so only read it if you want to, I just kind of want to put my own thoughts out there as a long time Addams fan who is also a fan of ‘Wednesday’ and why I feel that way. I apologize in advance for the long post.
So I’ve always been a big Addams Family fan, I have the 1964 sitcom series on dvd, a bootleg dvd of the 1998 “The New Addams Family” series, and the 90’s movies with Christina Ricci on Blu-Ray.
When ‘Wednesday’ came out on Netflix, I hadn’t actually watched any of the previous stuff in awhile, it was just sitting on the shelf. I loved the first season of Wednesday and it drove me to do a refresher, so I recently just got finished doing a binge of my entire Addams collection. Recently just finished my re-Watch of ‘Wednesday’ season 1, to see if the knowledge of all the previous Addams stuff fresh in my head would make me hate the new show and I confess…it doesn’t.
Sure it’s different, but why can’t it be seen as an alternate universe take on the brand rather than comparing it to everything that came before? Why can’t it be appreciated as its own separate standalone Addams thing? I fully believe you can be a long time of of everything from the 1960’s to to 90’s and still be a fan of ‘Wednesday’. I don’t believe that it has to be one or the other. I still like the show after the re-watch binge of everything and yes, I confess I’m absolutely hyped for season 2.
What I’m going to say next may sound crazy, but it’s just personally how I feel. I feel that a different take on the Addams universe that was a bit more serious, and darker, with more drama like this, was a good idea, a good experiment at trying something new, rather than making another completely family friendly comedy focused kind of adaptation.
Everything that came before is still there and it isn’t ruined by the existence of ‘Wednesday’, I believe ‘Wednesday’ can exist in co-existence with everything else, and be seen as, like I said, a kind of alternate universe Addams story,
I’ve seen Wednesday compared to Riverdale and considering I watched Riverdale beginning to end, I’d say Wednesday at the very least is a masterpiece of a show compared to the slop that “Rivershit” was. However I’m aware that when it comes to “Rivershit”, there is no bar to get over, the bar is laying on the ground actually.
Why did I watch the entire series of “Rivershit”? I definitely feel the need to defend myself here lol. Make no mistake, quality wise it’s one of the worst shows ever made, even by CW standards, though the first few seasons were “ok” at best. I watched it because as someone who is 35, and an Archie fan who grew up with tons of Archie comics as a child, I couldn’t help but be drawn to it, for nostalgia, and then I stuck with it as a guilty pleasure entertainment, laughing at how it was so bad it was good from beginning to end. If there’s anything positive about “Rivershit” to say, is it’s so unbelievably and terribly bad that it’s hilariously entertaining which also makes it good.
‘Wednesday’ at the very least, is a masterpiece compared to whatever “Rivershit” was trying to be. I’d even argue that ‘Wednesday’ is still a higher quality show than most of the CW stuff it gets compared to. I feel that ‘Wednesday’ at least tries to put a genuine effort in to be a good show and tell a solid story and I got invested in her and Enid’s dynamic and growing friendship (that Wednesday would never admit to).
Make no mistake though, Wednesday isn’t perfect by any means, and I know that it’s easy to get over the bar that’s “Rivershit” when the bar is laying on the ground and can be just stepped over, but while ‘Wednesday’ may be imperfect, I don’t think it’s a garbage or trash show by any means.
I’m aware I’ll probably get a lot of downvotes for this, but I just wanted to give my personal take on this. You don’t have to agree but I still ask for kindness or civil responses. We’re all real people behind these keyboards, and all of your opinions count regardless if you don’t agree with me and all of your opinions are absolutely valid opinions worth discussing. We all have different things we enjoy and that’s ok.

Skin always dehydrated
I’m on 0.025 of tretinoin and using on bare skin then waiting 30 mins to do serum, gel moisturiser and then occlusive moisturiser. I’m doing this every other day. Should I reduce this wait time?

• aveeno oat serum/purito centella -soon Jung emulsion -no7 100 hour hydration cream
• aveeno oat face wash -no other actives or exfoliating

On the acne side the frequency and bare skin has nearly cleared me up. Still getting new spots though every month but they seem to be going away quicker than before. I suspect I’m still getting a few spots every month from my skin being dehydrated/damaged barrier. I have KP on the perimeters of my face which tret is slowly working through I’m not too worried about that I know it’s super stubborn but I don’t know if that’s a factor? As that can get dry easily.
It’s more my skin just looks and feels bad? I’m certain it’s just dehydrated because I feel tight and sore all the time. Looks and feels irritated with the usual tell tells of large pores, greasy skin (causing blocked pores), redness, fine lines around eyes and on my cheeks. My skin just doesn’t retain moisture as soon as I finish applying my skincare and hour later I’m back to being tight and irritated.
I’m very generous and consistent with my moisturising and drinking water. Cut caffeine, alcohol, junk etc. Use a humidifier and don’t use heating anymore or take hot showers.
I just wanted to know will it end? is there anything that will hydrate my skin and keep it like that while I’m using tret or is this just part of using tret? If so I don’t think I can use long term as I’ve just switched one issue for another and it’s such a pain in my actual lifestyle to only get very average results.
Any advice/products or even treatments would be great as I feel like every step forward I take 2 back. I really want to stick through to a year before I make a decision on whether to quit (4 months in now).

So here's how I want to make hordes, illustrated on Goblins.
Let's say I have an army of 120 Goblins. Each tile can fit up to 5 Goblins, so they count as 2 Gargantuan creatures, each with a single stat block, speed, hit points, etc. When the horde moves, is subjected to any kind of spells or Saving Throws, it has a single Saving Throw and is immune to any conditions originating from a spell not targeting multiple creatures. (Alternatively, the player may use things such as Hold Person to stunn a single Goblin). Finally, any damage the horde takes is divided by 7 and this many Goblins dies from every attack. (More on that later.) As this is supposed to be a horde of considerably weaker enemies, you can forgo the damage which do not kill a single Goblin. This includes spells like Fireball, as Goblins are packed so densly fire and blast can only reach ever so many of them. (Which is what happens in real life too.)
When Goblins reach their target, they can share their tile with it and scatter into a shape other than Gargantuan creature, but always with 5 Goblins on each tile, unless there's not enough Goblins left. Whenever Goblins attack, the GM first rolls for the attack (1d20 + a single Goblin attack bonus (4) + number of Goblins on a tile (5)), then, if hit, he rolls 1d6 to determine how many Goblins hit (here, 3) then he rolls for damage (Xd6 (3d6) + a single Goblin damage bonus times the number of Goblins (here, 6). If the GM rolls 6 or other number higher than the number of Goblins on this tile, all Goblins on the tile attack. For simplicity, the GM may decide to attack from more than one tile at once (he then multiplies the 1d6 roll by the number of tiles)
Any Martial characters can use Swiping Damage, killing multiple Goblins per turn, same as in the Fireball example.
Optionally, the GM may decide Goblins or other creatures are not disciplined enough to attack all at once. Then, he may halven the roll from 1d6 to minimise the damage delt.
That's all folks. What do you think? I know it's a little complicated, but I think with some prep time, it should work

....
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.

The tensions with Opposing Empire have gone beyond mere mutual enmity. This is a conflict of economies, ideologies, and clandestine efforts, fought across our empires in the hearts and minds of our citizens. With some carelessness, or perhaps deliberate actions, it could quickly become a full-fledged military conflict.
^{(Note: this is a sneak peak into a larger Diplomacy DLC concept I am designing. Also disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I intentionally did not provide numbers, just ideas! Feel free to suggest or criticize.})
When two empires are Rivals a while, both sides will have the option to escalate the Rivalry into a Cold War, which costs Influence. If either side does this, a Situation that is shared and progressed by both sides is created. This situation is intended to provide more RP and mechanical freedom for empires to either diplomatically mend relations, prepare a leadup to war, or perhaps make gains without resorting to warfare.
Cold Wars, like many situations currently in the game, operate on a line between two endpoints, representing the tensions between the two empires: Reconciliation (-100) to War (100).
By default, the Situation will start at 0 and remain stagnant in the middle. Both sides will have access to four Approaches which have different bonuses and effects on the Situation:

• Seek De-Escalation: costs Unity to upkeep. Increases Opinion of the opposing empire, and progresses the Situation towards Reconciliation. (Our simmering conflict with Opposing Empire must be reconsidered. We will extend diplomatic tendrils in hopes of reducing tensions and reconciling our two empires.)
• Maintain Status Quo: costs no upkeep, has no effect. (The current friction with Opposing Empire works to our advantage. We will focus on our own affairs.)
• Clandestine Effort: costs low Energy Creds to upkeep. Moderately decreases the cost of running Spy Operations in the target empire and slightly increases their effectiveness. Slowly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have no desire for a large scale armed conflict with Opposing Empire at this time- instead, we will use... other methods to improve our position.)
• Prepare for Hostilities: costs more Energy Creds to upkeep. Increases Military Ship and Defense Platform build speed, and more quickly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have had enough of the thinly veiled hostilities with Opposing Empire. War is inevitable- and we will lay the groundwork for victory!)

Progress: there are also other factors which will influence the progress of this situation:

• Either side being Militarist or Xenophobe will add base progress towards War, increased if Fanatic.
• Insults will bump the scale towards War.
• Military buildup/border friction, as well as the currently existing Conduct Fleet Exercises event, will move the scale towards War.
• The opinion of either side decreasing further (ex. Harm Relations) will move the scale towards War- this also means a 3rd party could use Spy operations, like the existing Diplomatic Incident or Smear Campaign, to push the outbreak of hostilities!
• New Cassus Belli gained by either side against the other will push the scale towards War- for example, taking a Civic that grants CB, or becoming a Hegemon. So will Declaring War on a Vassal or Ally (provided this doesn't immediately pull the empire in).
• HOWEVER:
• Either side being Pacifist or Xenophile will add base progress towards Reconciliation, increased if Fanatic.
• Cassus Belli becoming invalid will push the scale towards Reconciliation- for example, Impose Ideology becomes invalid if the target adopts matching Ethics.
• Improving Relations by any means will move the scale towards Reconciliation. Eventually, Embassies and other Diplomatic actions can end the Cold War.
• De-Escalation can be traded under Actions- normally, Rival AI empires will never be willing to trade, but an exception can be made here, to for example allow one side to Trade systems, resources, etc as concessions in exchange for X progress towards De-Escalation. The AI may offer such deals if Inferior or Pathetic, and may request concessions to reduce tensions if Superior or Overwhelming.

Events: as with most Situations, the Cold War could feature various events for RP and mechanical purposes. Here are some examples I thought up:

• Fraternization with the Enemy (either empire is some degree of Spiritualist, Xenophile or Pacifist): Despite the tensions with Opposing Empire, news reports and viral videos have recently been circulating of groups of both Our Species and Their Species activists united in song and demonstration on multiple planets. Apparently, these individuals seek an end to the hostility between our empires.
  • [Support these noble and righteous souls.] - bumps the scale towards Reconciliation. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the corresponding Ethic.
  • [Ignore these misguided fools.] - situation does not change. Gain temporary Happiness debuff for pops of the the responsible Ethic.
  • (Militarist, Xenophobe, or Authoritarian) - [Arrest as many of the wicked traitors as we can identify!] - costs Influence, bumps the scale towards War. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the Ethic you used to take this choice.
• Arms Race Breakthrough (is currently using the Prepare for Hostilities approach, increased chance if Materialist or Technocracy): Amidst the large-scale preparations for possible conflict with Opposing Empire, a small team of scientists has independently developed a new military technology and presented it to our government for use.
  • [Excellent.] - bumps the scale towards War, and gain a low-mid tier military tech that was not yet researched. If no valid options, gain some Engineering research instead.
• Pro-War Rally (has any Xenophobe or Militarist leader): Recently, in front of massive crowds on Planet Name, Leader Name delivered a rousing speech extolling the glorious virtues of Our Empire and denouncing the horrific threat presented by Opposing Empire. It would seem many have been swept up in this pro-war fervor and are demanding action from our government. However, foreign emissaries and more moderate elements have cautioned against supporting such explosive, radical rhetoric.
  • [We stand with Leader Name! To war!] - bumps the scale towards War, changes our approach to Prepare for Hostilities if it isn't already, and gain Unity and temporary Ethics Attraction to Leader Name's Ethics. BUT reduces the Opinion of Opposing Empire and any empires Cordial or friendlier to them.
  • [Heads must be kept cool, and Leader Name must be reprimanded.] - costs Influence, but the situation does not change.

And now, for the conclusions of the situation:
Reconciliation Finisher (or if empires somehow become overlord/vassal or allies via external circumstances)
Both Empires get the Event: De-Escalation Successful
In a significant diplomatic achievement, the heated tensions with Opposing Empire have been comprehensively defused! Perhaps this will pave the way for friendlier relations and better days ahead.
If the Situation reaches Reconciliation, the Cold War and Rivalry will immediately be ended, with all their bonuses and effects. Both empires will gain a moderate lump sum of Influence and Unity, as well as a small burst of increased Opinion for each other.

• [That was a close one.] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [A glorious day!] - the rewards are increased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Disappointing.] - the rewards are decreased

War Finisher (or if empires are pulled in by other factors)
Both Empires get the Event: Cold War Turns Hot
The heated tensions with Opposing Empire have ignited! Negotiations have broken down, and fierce border skirmishes have erupted. The truth is now undeniable: we are at war.
If the Situation reaches War, the Cold War and Rivalry will transform into an actual, normal war. Both empires will gain a small lump sum of Influence and Unity and will have a window to pick from their available Cassus Belli and call in allies before the battle begins.

• [To battle stations!] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [Well, we tried...] - the rewards are decreased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Long have we waited for this moment!] - the rewards are increased

And that's all I've got for you all today. Thanks for reading and please send any suggestions or feedback! Here's a bonus: a new achievement based on the irl Soviet Colonel who may have saved the world
Legacy of S'tann Pet'rovv: De-Escalate a Cold War after tensions had at one point reached 95 or higher.

Gooday fellow Pc Builders. So my Pc was in desprate need for an upgrade. It was a pretty old pc so I ended up buying most parts new and only kept my old gpu and two 8gb DDR4 RAM sticks.
My current specs: Motherboard: MSI B550-A Pro CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5700x RAM: 2x16gb ddr4 + my old 2x8gb ddr4 GPU: NVidia Geforce GTX 1080
Everything seems to work fine except that my monitors sometimes lose their signal. Im using one 4k monitor and a 2k monitor. This seems to happen mostly when I activly use both montiors for a long time f.e. Watching a video and play a game at the same time. Also when I tab in and out of a game repetelty it seems to trigger this error aswell.
The Monitors go black but everything else is still running( Im still moving ingame, sound is still playing, discord is still working etc). Frequently the monitors turn back on for a few seconds and than turn black again. Sometimes the monitors stays on and shows a pictue until I click on something, than it goes black again.
After some time in this state the monitor loses signal completly and I either have to restart the pc or close everything on it, turn off one monitor and wait for like 5-10min until I have a stable picture again. But even if waiting works and I can see my desktop again, the whole(?) pc becomes extremely laggy with everything e.g. Opening the explorer, the browser or the setting takes around 10-20sec which normally would happend instantly.
The MSI monitoring software shows that in that buggy state the workload of my cpu is on average around 50% up to 70% with the highest messuard temperature at around 80°C when im playing cpu heavy games. RAMs workload is usually around 30-40%. I have no reliable monitoring softwarw for my gpu.
I think and hope this is a problem with the gpu, its around 5-6 years old now. My other theory is that the ram has some sort of a proablem with the ram loading due to the different bars eventho that normally shouldn't be a problem?
Any Ideas what the problem and/or solution is here? I dont want to buy a new gpu only to find out that it is a different problem. Thanks in advance
Edit: if anyone knows a good monitoring softwarw for the GPU would also really help

1st -Music Review Thread. Post your songs here!
Here is the feedback thread for our first music review feed!

• DO feel free to jump in at any point; this thread will be up for about a week, and at the very least, I will be checking in and listening to submissions. Simple one-mic recordings are perfectly acceptable.
• DO give feedback to others instead of just posting your own music
• DO give specific advice
• DO ask questions about decisions
• DO be respectful; comments like "this song sucks" doesn't help anyone.
• DO provide your lyrics and any relevant information. [Although optional]
• DO NOT say anything at all if you have nothing positive to say (this should never be the case).
• DO NOT attack people if they criticize your work; take it as an opportunity to make improvements

Guidelines:#
I hate red tape and bureaucracy so let's keep these nice and easy:
-Any type of recording will be fine. Any type of streaming link will be fine as well.
I think this will be a good chance to see what kind of services people use for streaming their music, what kind of recordings you can create, and what kind of recordings get noticed.
-Keep in mind that better quality recordings often receive better feedback, and it doesn't take a lot of equipment to make good recordings... and performance is the biggest part of a good recording! Practice with your metronome!
-Feel free to find others to collaborate with in the comments section!
-HAVE FUN!!!
Private Soundcloud links may experience streaming issues; you can just like, make a new email address and make a private account for demos if you already have an account for official releases.

I started to feel normal again after about three weeks. A few days later my body shows me I’m not out of the woods yet. I’ll never touch thc again in any form. I can clearly see what it’s done to my body. Since about a week ago I’ve experienced ups and downs. Anger and elation. Bodily functions not exactly normal. After researching I’ve learned the process will take around six months for my body to get back to functioning properly again. Thc has its place in this world as do most other substances but once you start using them for social lubricants or on a daily basis you will change your body and how it functions. I’m starting a new job and I want to be successful. Using ANY substance will make that difficult. I’m done with all of them. I’m eating very healthy and getting exercise too. I’m drinking nothing but water outside of an orange juice or vitamin drink. The difference is astounding. I taste my food now. I feel my body how. My temperature remains constant now. I’m getting things accomplished now. I’m playing catch up. Using this stuff is going to rob your motivation and your empathy not to mention your health. Maybe It should be illegal.

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?

Noteable people is 18-23M me, 35-38F mother, 8-12F sister, ages aren't a exact for identity purposes. And apologies for any bad grammar, it was never my thing.
So first to preface this by saying yes I know I need to move on I just don't know how without creating more resentment towards my mother than there already is.
So to give context, we live in a government apartment complex (comes into play later) in Oregon. We got it when I 7th grade-8 grade range in middle school. We have been living here ever since. There's been issues here and there like all families, nothing to intense or out of the norm to be of concern or create resentment between us in terms of fights or the such.
Now where the problem comes in first off, my mother has a lot of mental issues. She's throughout all my life has been depressed plus severe anxiety. She said a lot of it stims from having me young and taking care of me. She also due to her young age having me has felt guilty for not providing enough. Which she is very defensive about so throughout my life. Often feeling like I can't say anything without making her get defensive (not angry like crying), so I've by and large kept quiet and just went along with it as it made me feel bad.
This with the fact that I had not father growing up, she tried to basically find replacements. Replacemens looks back I didn't really need, as my grandpa and grandma already shoulder that burden and did a wonderful job at it. This created for my mom the reason to find a boyfriend and stick with them because in her name it was for me to have a father figure so to say. Problem comes, she rushed into theses relationships while being young. So obviously they turned out to be douchebags behind the scenes and bare medium above the table. But she never split from them, only after a really long time due to her attachment issues.
I think u get the idea, now fast forward until roughly a year after COVID started, at the time I believe I was starting my Jr year maybe a little ways into jr year. She quit her job as her job was giving her no hours. This I do not blame at all. But during this time she got a new boyfriend. Same story as the rest, this guy wasn't a full on douchebag but wasn't a good guy either. He kinda was just whatever. He had money as he was big into crypto when that boomed. This with her attachment issue/plus no job created a dependentsy. Since she hasn't gotten a job yet to time of this post.
Now the real problem and why I can't move on. The boyfriend she was dependent on and her broke up. Since she doesn't work a job yet she's not making any money obviously. Oregon in the government apartments we live in it's based on rent, we don't make money we don't need to pay rent. Along with using food stamps. For that reason if she was to get a job rent would go up, food stamps would go down and unless she's working a lot of hours it simply lvls out. That's her reasoning for not getting a job. The rules apply just the same way to me.
Now in normal circumstances I would just find a job, work, pay the rent then move out. But I have a sister, who I getting the short end of the stick. On one hand my mother has said quite literally in the past her job was raising me and as I'm a adult she believes she's finished that job and gets a break.
Tensions between my sister and my mother isn't in the best spot to say the least. My sister isn't good at hiding her emotions especially with puberty hitting her, even tho she trys. this in turn makes my mother's anxiety sky rocket and makes her sad constantly. This makes my sister feel guilty. I try to mediate best I can but as the past with me always keeping quiet, it's let go when it affects others I care about. I never really cared about anyone really in the past so it's never happened. This makes my mother feel like both of us are against her and out to get her. So even worse than before it feels like both me and my sister are on egg shells.
This is also a minor one but relevant none the less. My sister wanted a cat for herself as I had my own. I said it was a bad idea at the time because we had fleas and should deal with that first. My mother said it was fine she was gonna handle it and what not. I said OK but I don't wanna have any responsibilities connected to this animal. Come to today his 1.5 years old and has issues related to fleas as they where never delt with.
So my sister is one reason I have a hard time moving on. The other is I don't wanna feel responsible for both my mother and my sister and paying rent for them while so young myself. Knowing myself well enough I can acknowledge that it will make any and all my resentment blow over terribly for my mother. As the power dynamic will be swapped for me and any eggshells that I would tip toe around, I never will anymore. Any and all guilt shes felt will be multiplied to high. Again making my sister feel bad cuz that girl won't even hurt a fly. So on the one hand I wanna take car of my sister and be there for her, the other hand I don't wanna be near my mother and both in combination I feel is holding me back.
Btw before u ask I've been asking my mother to see a therapist for years. So much so I made it a birthday wish for her to simply make a appointment and that's all I asked for her. She still hasn't but I don't know how to bring it up without stepping on the eggshells. I do once in a while but she get emotional.
Tldr, I don't know how to move on, with taking on so much responsibility I shouldn't have imo, not wanting my sister to get screwed over in the process, single mother that has mental problems that's effecting the whole family.

Just as the title says, this woman had a kid in 2023 and now said kid is starting to be weaned. I know this woman has been vegan for several years and her boyfriend became one too after some time. He's kind of a chill person, it took him a long time to ditch dairy and I'm not even sure if he makes some exceptions for dessert from time to time.
She on the other hand cannot even stand any byproducts in her home; once, after a dinner, someone left some eggs they had brought to cook something for a person with special exigencies (the food they had made wasn't suitable for that person because of allergies so we brought some more ingredients) and she was extremely triggered when she found them in the pantry, getting visibly angry at whomever had forgotten to take them away. She's this highly spiritual person (being half-Indian partly originated that, she was raised there half of her life by a vegetarian and both she and the parent went vegan later) and is really passionate about that. Now she has this wonderful child and she said that she's only feeding the little one vegan food after weaning. I also told her I stopped being a quasi-vegan (I used to be a vegetarian for a long time and ate as little dairy as possible, 2 eggs per week at most, before I found out that my body and mind were literally collapsing because of poor absorption of some nutrients) and she made a strange face. I mean, even I had decided that I'd feed my kid a regular diet or a vegetarian one at most, back then, before I started eating meat again. Regardless of whatever people may say, I wouldn't want to find out if you can keep a child safe on that diet by experimenting on my own. I always believed that forcing that diet on someone who's growing and needs so many nutrients is folly.
I know that telling her that doing that to her kid is harmful won't change anything so I did not even try, honestly, also because she'd tell me that I had made a similar dietary choice and hence I am incoherent not to respect hers. But I am worried on the other hand because her choice is no longer only hers when she has a kid to feed. The father seems chill with that and that worries me even more. As long as she keeps breastfeeding the kid, the body will probably collect whatever nutrient she's not getting through diet by eroding her own body, but when she does stop breastfeeding, that kid will have basically half the nutrients needed to grow healthily, not to mention the body may not absorb all of them properly.

I’m only a week into CPAP therapy, and yes, I know there’s an adjustment period, but I’m so tired I feel like I could fall on my face at any moment. I have legitimately worried about driving. I feel like I did when I had newborns, but at least then I was on maternity leave and wasn’t expected to work so it didn’t cause the anxiety and stress that this is.
For context, I have never woken sleepy. I have bviously always been a morning person to anyone who knows me, whose brain click into high gear the moment I wake. I was often asked by my sleep doc before I started therapy how sleepy or lethargic I felt when I woke, and other than right after I had babies many years ago, I just don’t. I’ve always felt well rested despite the apnea. (Mild apnea)
Until now. I’m so discouraged, that I’m ready to take a break just to catch up on sleep. I have a pretty intense career and I’m noticing that my brain is sluggish, and I’m having difficulty recalling terms and wording my technical writing. Even my coworkers have noticed.
I wake frequently with CPAP. Most of the time, it’s to adjust my full face mask because I have changed position (apparently I roll back and forth a good bit when I sleep) and it’s hissing due to a small leak around the seal, but also whenever the pressure changes on my Airsense 11. I already adjusted the pressure to be at a more comfortable range. My sleep doc had that thing set to ramp all the way up to 20 and I can’t even exhale when it’s that high, and that used to wake me too but I solved that problem. I’m not sure how frequently I’m waking, but enough that I remember them clearly, sometimes only 30 minutes apart.
How long before I start to adjust and see that it’s helping? I don’t know if I have the will or fortitude to give it months.

heyo, i've posted here in the past and i think almost everyone is sick of seeing me already lmfao but what can you do, there isn't any other subreddit or even site/app that i know of where you can find gaming friends.
we're looking for another couple to play games with and become good friends. we take care of our friendships and if there's something wrong or something is making you upset, we can always talk it out. quality over quantity after all (not that our brains can even handle having more than like 4 friends lmao)
we play irregularly - sometimes daily, sometimes every few days, sometimes once a week. i'm more available than my girlfriend is, she's way more busy than me. we usually plan our hangouts down to the hour and try not to miss them. even if we do miss a hangout, we reschedule.
as for the hours, well we tend to switch our sleep schedules every so often, usually we play during late hours (evening in europe) but now we've switched again and are hanging out at an earlier time. so i guess we'd be playing roughly 4-5 hours from now, as of making this post. that's what happens when you're in two separate timezones lmao.
we play co-op games like lethal company, risk of rain 2, deep rock galactic, terraria (recently started a modded playthrough again), rimworld (with multiplayer mods), don't starve together, palworld and a few other games. we're not fans of games like valorant, league or overwatch.
sorry, we're not interested in joining large preestablished friend groups, our social anxiety could never lmao. we'd rather create a tightly knit friend circle with the 4 of us, okay MAX 6 of us. we're also not interested in befriending individual people (like not a couple, yk? no offense just not what we're looking for), we tried it in the past and it ended up with them trying to flirt with one of us like 90% of the time lmao.
sorry for the wall of text, i just like writing stuff lmao can you tell i'm a writer? no, because my writing sucks ass? fair.
anyway, hit me up pal. also i believe reddit chat is scuffed right now so send a direct message instead if you can.

I'm about at my wits' end here...my situation:
I've had my beautiful 13-year-old, 65-lb. blue merle for 11 years. He's vastly different from almost any other Aussie I've ever met: low-energy, a bit shy, and totally laid back. Of course, he's also affectionate, fun, and like your Aussie, cracker-jack smart.
He is 100% food-motivated; he has zero interest in toys.
He also has exactly zero bad habits. None. No chewing, excessive barking, accidents in the house. He's obedient, fantastic on a leash, sweet. So why am I losing my mind? Because, as of a week ago, he has decided he's done taking the medicine that controls his arthritis and pain. I mean, he's just not having it anymore.
Here's what I have tried using thus far to wrap/disguise his pills:

1. Pill pockets of varying flavors and textures
2. Slicy cheese
3. Lunch meats/hot dogs
4. A marshmallow
5. Meatballs that I made myself, just for him
6. Crushing up the pills to powder, and sprinkling them in his food, along with some beef broth and a dusting of Parmesan (his favorite) -- only to have him take one sniff and walk away
7. Doing the last-resort forcing to the back of the throat, only to have him beat me at the game every single time (I guess I just don't have the talent; when I push it to the back of his mouth, the split second it takes me to get my good hand to force his beak shut is all he needs to shake free and spit it out).

NB: I am five feet tall, kind of small, and not very strong. I'm ashamed to say he just overpowers me in order to get away.
At risk of sounding overdramatic: it's affecting our peaceful life together, in that now he's afraid to eat from his bowl, or accept any treat from me. As I sit here at my desk at 5:45 a.m., he's lying on the floor next to me, and I'm listening to his stomach growl. It's pitiful.
So before I raise the white flag and call the vet about injections (which I dread), I thought I'd check here. Anyone else have a near-impossible situation like this and come out successful? Any advice appreciated, and sorry for the long treatise.

I hate myself and I feel like such a cliche. I (f)got married young (21) to my husband who is a couple years older. I think a few things led to me personally making this life choice. My parents had a messy divorce which left me estranged from my father and feeling forgotten about/replaced by my mother and I was Obsessed with starting my own family. I even thought I wanted to be a young mom at the time. So we got married young after 4 years of dating. I was also brought up religious and that combined with my mental illness made me cling to purity culture beyond a healthy amount even after I stopped being christian. My husband was my first kiss (at 18), first everything… you get it.
he’s known the whole time he’s been with me that it’s my life long dream to live in New York to pursue my dream career. he’s always been supportive and honestly he’s a great man. He’s honest and loving and so completely giving. Anyway, fast forward we’ve been married 2 years and living in New York for a year. my whole life and self has changed. Im realizing all the things I want to with my life, I’m making friends, I’m going places, on trips with my friends. My husband does nothing at all besides play video games with his friends that are back in our home town. It’s not even that he’s lazy because he’s really not. He does his part and more when it comes to chores he just isn’t taking care of HIMSELF. He never has to leave the couch because he works from home. So do I. So we are together at home all day. And I feel guilty building a life and living it. he hasnt tried making friends at all. Has no other hobbies. This man hasn’t left our tiny apartment for a year. I feel like his whole existence orbits around me and video games and it’s making me crazy. I’ve seen a difference in him from before we moved and he agreed with me he won’t stay happy long term. I’ve cried to him about this several times now but it’s just like he’s paralyzed or something. He’s not taking care of himself in any way. I feel like we’re holding each other back
i am trying to keep this short so I’m not going to go into every detail or other problems we have, like whether or not we’ll be compatible parents, but there’s one thing we all know changes and determines everything: sex. I’m just gonna give it to you straight. It’s not good. It took me forever to realize because I had nothing to compare it to. I used to think I was not a sexual person but it turns out I think he’s the one who isn’t. even today it’s been almost two weeks and he hasn’t even mentioned it. I have tried asking to try new things a couple times in the past but he’s not that receptive. I’ve been with him for 6 years total and I’ve never finished without … help. It gets to a point where when he finally does initiate I’ve already taken care of it myself or just don’t want to. And these days I just don’t feel attracted. The guilt is eating me alive. There’s nothing anyone can say that I don’t think worse of myself. Not even the most woman hating incel lol(boy would they love this story fml) I would never ever cheat but I feel like a teenager any Mild attraction I have towards anyone else spirals into endless fantasizing and it’s driving me literally crazy and again, makes me so guilty I want to die... I don’t know where to end this and its already pretty long so I guess I’ll leave it there for now. I feel Like the only person in the world with this problem. are these problems fixable? I’m left with a lot of moral questions which I guess aren’t allowed. What makes a marriage with big foundational problems salvageable? Am I being too selfish? I know certain things fade anyway but feeling like we’re already there in our early twenties is… so depressing.
tl;dr: got married young. same bs cliche problems you expect arose and I just found out youre supposed to actually really enjoy sex. And I want to. but I don’t. Not sure where to go from here

I’m a mom of 2 young children (3&4) and a nurse… both my babies arrive just before and during covid , so not only was it a global pandemic I also went from 0 to 2 under 2 in 3 years…. My job as a nurse is always rushing and crazy crazy… we’ve now had a huge move to the other side of the world and my stress levels are at an all time high and my tolerance for any type of stress has collapsed, I’m usually very proactive and can utilise stress to get stuff done etc. but I’ve seemed to have crashed and I’m chronically stressed. I’m over eating, not looking after myself, so I’m very quick to anger… I can’t deal with my children’s tantrums. I feel a mess. Any tips on how to bring down stress levels to a normal baseline. I’m constantly triggered and being made “jump” and little things giving me Adrenaline rushes. I’m constantly on edge and I can’t take it anymore. I just keep crying

Hi po! Me and some of my family members currently live in some ghetto area po. And lately, we ran into some altercation with our neighbor. Until then, we never really cared about what they do or what is happening in their own house po but lately they've been threatening us subtly and even more blatantly po when he is under the influence. If it was just any other threats from someone else po I wouldn't really take it to heart. But that threat came from what I suspect is a drug addict po. I don't have concrete evidence and I also wouldn't want to label someone as an "addict" so recklessly pero I feel like you can really tell a normal person from someone who uses drugs. He does things in a very extra way. He has this loud commanding obnoxious voice. I can also hear him when drinking with what I suspect are his friends that are also under drugs talking about asking his other friends if they want some and that he'd send them "rice". I don't know how to use drugs pero sometimes din po at the middle of night we would smell something burning. And one time I heard them talking about my childhood friend who recently got arrested for being involved in drugs. One of his friend especially said something along the lines of "Idadamay po ko non ni childhood friend ah". I don't really feel safe here anymore especially since you never really know what can trigger them all of a sudden. That's why I'm asking how do I report this while remaining anonymous po? For fear for safety narin po since I might be dealing with a larger group. TYIA!!