How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

Hello there,
I’m happy to introduce you to a side project I’ve developed this week. Just like a lot of you, I’m keeping my seed in form of BIP39 mnemonic on metal plate. I do not keep these plate with me but far away in order to avoid a 5$ attack.
That’s spacial distance.
I suggest to complete this approach by adding “Temporal distance” to your security scheme. This simply means when you want to access your fund you cannot before a given amount of time. I believe a wallet mixing temporal distance and spacial distance is a great form of security.
I’ve realised an javascript implementation of this idea. If you have NPM you can download it and use it as a CLI tool or a lib for your own project. (npm install -g wait4wallet)
https://www.npmjs.com/package/wait4wallet
Because of the cryptographic nature of this project I publish the code in order to allows anyone to audit the it
https://github.com/Yug-Damon/wait4wallet

How to use it:

Building the delayed access wallet :
walletA -> walletB + secret

$ wait4wallet --duration  --mnemonic “” // the given amount of time of computation Mnemonic: [the new mnemonic] use it for funding of multisig secret : [the secret] store it for later access 

Accessing the delayed access wallet
walletA + secret -> walletB

$ wait4wallet —secret  --mnemonic “” // the given amount of time of computation Mnemonic: [the new mnemonic] use it for signing transaction 

Thank you to have read me, I’ll be happy to answer questions and consider any improvement

​
​
Acusmouse - Philanthrope (Andrea Ferlin Remix) [GOODRO DIGITAL] / Key Bm, BPM 128, 8:04, MP3 19.52 Mb
Acusmouse - Philanthrope [GOODRO DIGITAL] / Key Gm, BPM 125, 7:27, MP3 18.06 Mb
Aiyo - Ramaramaray [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Dm, BPM 95, 2:47, MP3 7.11 Mb
Aiyo - Shuffle Showdown [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Dm, BPM 131, 3:03, MP3 7.77 Mb
Aiyo - Street Rev Anthem [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Dbm, BPM 144, 2:52, MP3 7.33 Mb
Akrill, YASASHI - Капризная feat. YASASHI [welofi] / Key Dm, BPM 142, 3:58, MP3 9.96 Mb
Akrill, YASASHI - Капризная feat. YASASHI (Slowed) [welofi] / Key Cm, BPM 125, 4:31, MP3 11.26 Mb
Alan Ellis - Come To [Epidemic Electronic] / Key F#m, BPM 148, 3:23, MP3 8.41 Mb
Alan Ellis - Leveler [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Eb, BPM 120, 3:30, MP3 8.66 Mb
Alan Ellis - Poles [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Gm, BPM 115, 3:37, MP3 8.94 Mb
Aleksandr Stroganov - Oy Daa (Instrumental Mix) [Stroganov Music] / Key D, BPM 118, 6:39, MP3 16.31 Mb
Aleksandr Stroganov - Oy Daa [Stroganov Music] / Key Dm, BPM 118, 6:39, MP3 16.31 Mb
AlphaCube - Balearic Guitars [SounEmot State] / Key Abm, BPM 136, 7:09, MP3 17.37 Mb
Anastasiya Berezovscaya - Vo sne idu [Ashime Records] / Key Dm, BPM 104, 3:57, MP3 9.67 Mb
Anton Dolgushin - Questions & Answers [Nature Is Pure Love] / Key Fm, BPM 120, 5:17, MP3 12.89 Mb
Anton Dolgushin - Way to Target [Nature Is Pure Love] / Key F#m, BPM 123, 3:23, MP3 8.36 Mb
Ariel Shalom - Stuck in My Head [Artlist Original] / Key Cm, BPM 174, 3:11, MP3 8.00 Mb
Attima - Parking Lot Dahlias [Bioritmica] / Key Bb, BPM 143, 2:47, MP3 7.04 Mb
Attima - World Premiere Interview [Bioritmica] / Key Fm, BPM 116, 2:48, MP3 7.09 Mb
BABY GEE VIBES - Techno High [EDM Vibes Music] / Key Cm, BPM 150, 5:37, MP3 13.68 Mb
Bodzza - Mind Keeper [Codein Music] / Key Fm, BPM 144, 5:23, MP3 13.08 Mb
Bodzza - Pedra no Sapato [Codein Music] / Key Fm, BPM 143, 5:26, MP3 13.17 Mb
Bodzza - Plateau [Codein Music] / Key Dbm, BPM 144, 4:57, MP3 12.01 Mb
Bodzza - Those Days [Codein Music] / Key Dm, BPM 142, 5:40, MP3 13.73 Mb
Bodzza - Vicious [Codein Music] / Key Am, BPM 142, 5:55, MP3 14.34 Mb
Boiler K, Piso Con Vistas - Valiendo (Club Edit) [Superkinki Music] / Key Fm, BPM 125, 3:38, MP3 8.83 Mb
Booty Leak, Yellow Pvnk, TECHNO KING - What Is Love (HYPERTECHNO) [Magic Techno] / Key F#m, BPM 160, 1:42, MP3 4.26 Mb
Brothertiger - The Garden [Brothertiger] / Key C, BPM 144, 4:45, MP3 12.22 Mb
Casiio, Sleepermane - Myrrh [Lotus Records] / Key Eb, BPM 80, 2:36, MP3 6.64 Mb
Chaco - Rude Boy (Edit) [Realty Records] / Key Gm, BPM 130, 2:57, MP3 7.64 Mb
Chaco - Rude Boy [Realty Records] / Key Cm, BPM 133, 3:44, MP3 9.50 Mb
Chris Klein - Solar Eclipse [Sounds and Frequencies Recordings] / Key Abm, BPM 122, 6:37, MP3 16.13 Mb
DEX 1200 - The Lost Forest [Epidemic Electronic] / Key Cm, BPM 100, 4:07, MP3 10.38 Mb
DHertz - Techno - Classic T [DHertz] / Key Abm, BPM 140, 3:09, MP3 7.65 Mb
DJ DOSKOI - Sample415 [Young Technic] / Key Cm, BPM 126, 5:24, MP3 13.14 Mb
DJ Tranceair - Gilgamesh [SounEmot State] / Key Fm, BPM 140, 5:43, MP3 13.95 Mb
Davvi - Spring Breeze [EYRA Music] / Key Dbm, BPM 94, 3:35, MP3 8.91 Mb
Desire - Darkside [Italians Do It Better] / Key Fm, BPM 137, 4:12, MP3 10.52 Mb
Desire - Human Nature [Italians Do It Better] / Key C, BPM 120, 3:47, MP3 9.54 Mb
Desire - Vampire [Italians Do It Better] / Key F#, BPM 162, 2:37, MP3 6.74 Mb
Dj Rauff - Rumble [Luxury Night] / Key Ebm, BPM 105, 2:31, MP3 6.39 Mb
DreamLife, SounEmot, Grande Piano, Elgfrothi - Ephemeral Past (DreamSkies Mashup) [SounEmot State] / Key Am, BPM 138, 5:38, MP3 13.75 Mb
Drum & Breakers, Madhalakk - You Deserve Love (Edit Mix) [Superkinki Music] / Key Em, BPM 131, 2:45, MP3 6.69 Mb
Empath - Felucca feat. Tapani Rinne (Kimik Remix) [The Sound Collective] / Key Em, BPM 132, 3:49, MP3 9.52 Mb
Empath - Felucca feat. Tapani Rinne [The Sound Collective] / Key E, BPM 132, 7:16, MP3 17.79 Mb
Empath - Road to Quantum feat. Tapani Rinne [The Sound Collective] / Key Gm, BPM 131, 6:22, MP3 15.64 Mb
Evissimax - OTT [Universal Music Italia srL.] / Key Am, BPM 140, 4:00, MP3 9.72 Mb
Flowzhaker, Simsoneria Swing - Plastic Dolls (Edit Mix) [Superkinki Music] / Key Cm, BPM 120, 2:12, MP3 5.36 Mb
Fran Garro - Rosas (Techno) [FRAN GARRO MUSIC] / Key A, BPM 150, 3:12, MP3 8.08 Mb
Fran Garro, Techno Bangers - Rosas (Hypertechno) [FRAN GARRO MUSIC] / Key B, BPM 162, 2:58, MP3 7.51 Mb
Frank Wiedemann, Howling, RY X - Phases feat. RY X feat. Frank Wiedemann (Edit) [Counter Records] / Key Bbm, BPM 123, 2:37, MP3 6.65 Mb
Freezeout - Run Run [Queenside Recordings] / Key Bbm, BPM 125, 2:34, MP3 6.30 Mb
Freezeout - Time (Mark Vox Remix - Extended Mix) [Queenside Recordings] / Key Ebm, BPM 125, 3:52, MP3 9.46 Mb
Goldy - Обійняти [Ukraine Dancing Label] / Key F, BPM 116, 3:20, MP3 8.23 Mb
Grande Piano - Emotion Code [SounEmot State] / Key Abm, BPM 136, 6:55, MP3 16.85 Mb
GutterGizmo - Sliabh Torc [Soundserfing Records] / Key Cm, BPM 135, 5:56, MP3 14.48 Mb
H. Paul - Ghosts in the procession (Asymmetrik Remix) [Induxtriall Records] / Key Gm, BPM 133, 6:05, MP3 14.67 Mb
H. Paul - Ghosts in the procession (Original mix) [Induxtriall Records] / Key Cm, BPM 135, 5:13, MP3 12.61 Mb
H. Paul - Gunshots and screams (Original mix) [Induxtriall Records] / Key Dbm, BPM 165, 2:57, MP3 7.18 Mb
H. Paul - Rationalization (Oleka Remix) [Induxtriall Records] / Key Abm, BPM 144, 5:25, MP3 13.09 Mb
H. Paul - racionalización (Mezcla original) [Induxtriall Records] / Key F#m, BPM 136, 5:18, MP3 12.80 Mb
Halvorsen, MÆDM, Mike Riser - Rinse & Repeat (feat. Halvorsen) [Forever Young Recordings] / Key Fm, BPM 126, 3:33, MP3 8.80 Mb
Hokori - No Man's Home [Lamp] / Key Dm, BPM 90, 5:47, MP3 14.17 Mb
Hokori - The Secret Place [Lamp] / Key Fm, BPM 90, 2:51, MP3 7.13 Mb
Honey Hell - Nocturnoodles [Honey Hell] / Key Bm, BPM 142, 5:14, MP3 12.78 Mb
House Anatomy - Around Me [Queenside Recordings] / Key Cm, BPM 123, 2:30, MP3 6.17 Mb
House Anatomy - Chances [Queenside Recordings] / Key Am, BPM 124, 3:37, MP3 8.83 Mb
House Anatomy - Fly With You [Queenside Recordings] / Key Abm, BPM 124, 2:29, MP3 6.12 Mb
ILY, Ambvsh, Anguish - We Fell Apart [LABEL EATER] / Key Fm, BPM 106, 2:18, MP3 5.69 Mb
ILY, Ambvsh, Anguish - We Fell Apart (Slowed) [LABEL EATER] / Key Ebm, BPM 95, 2:36, MP3 6.38 Mb
Ilya Gerus - Microcosmos [Lamp] / Key Eb, BPM 120, 5:28, MP3 13.43 Mb
Imeall - Endevol (Invisible Audience Mix) [Lamp] / Key Em, BPM 123, 3:43, MP3 9.23 Mb
Inherent - Profondità [Systolic Label] / Key Abm, BPM 126, 7:30, MP3 18.20 Mb
Jason Rivas, Lo-Fi on Elm Street - Sunny Day In Central Park (Edit Mix) [Superkinki Music] / Key F#m, BPM 116, 2:35, MP3 6.30 Mb
KAT3X - DEMON TIME [KATEXIS] / Key F#m, BPM 140, 7:05, MP3 17.36 Mb
KAT3X, Martin Luis - ON AIR [KATEXIS] / Key Am, BPM 126, 6:13, MP3 15.28 Mb
Kirilovsky - Nebula Nights [Systolic Label] / Key Cm, BPM 130, 7:14, MP3 17.57 Mb
Konkurs - Active Measures [X-IMG] / Key Abm, BPM 130, 6:18, MP3 15.45 Mb
Konkurs - Descender [X-IMG] / Key Bbm, BPM 110, 5:05, MP3 12.53 Mb
Konkurs - Object of Subversion [X-IMG] / Key Ebm, BPM 133, 6:04, MP3 14.88 Mb
Konkurs - Plasma [X-IMG] / Key Dbm, BPM 130, 6:06, MP3 14.94 Mb
Kryss Hypnowave - Mare Tranquillitatis [Systolic Label] / Key Cm, BPM 120, 7:44, MP3 18.78 Mb
Krzysztof Zalewski - ZGŁOWY [Kayax Production & Publishing] / Key Em, BPM 98, 3:49, MP3 9.47 Mb
Layla Mystic, The Watermelon Summer Crew - Owls (Edit Mix) [Superkinki Music] / Key Gm, BPM 122, 2:26, MP3 5.94 Mb
Liam Dennis - Think Like That [Ulysse Records] / Key Gm, BPM 126, 2:48, MP3 6.88 Mb
Liana, Mood 5 - Work 4 Love (Thrill Me Extended) [Big Mama's House Records] / Key Cm, BPM 121, 6:52, MP3 16.77 Mb
Luca Pernice - PAPI (feat Nina Krings) [ARM Records] / Key Cm, BPM 131, 5:39, MP3 13.90 Mb
Luiz Castro - 7 Am In Rio [Monkey Business Lab] / Key Dbm, BPM 123, 4:52, MP3 11.83 Mb
Luiz Castro - Ainda [Monkey Business Lab] / Key Gm, BPM 124, 3:53, MP3 9.46 Mb
Luiz Castro - Essência [Monkey Business Lab] / Key Abm, BPM 120, 4:19, MP3 10.49 Mb
Luiz Castro - Piquezin [Monkey Business Lab] / Key Bbm, BPM 142, 3:37, MP3 8.83 Mb
MTD, Thanatos, Tracy, KAT3X - SHOCK feat. MTD feat. Tracy (Reconstruction) [KATEXIS] / Key Dm, BPM 140, 6:51, MP3 16.81 Mb
Majed Salih, Vin - Wanary (feat. Vin) [Medievil-Music] / Key Fm, BPM 150, 1:47, MP3 4.39 Mb
Mako Lagoon - Naive Colada [Multiza Distribution] / Key Ebm, BPM 80, 3:00, MP3 7.47 Mb
Mamlouk Mohamed - Ocean Eyes [LVLD Music] / Key Am, BPM 126, 3:09, MP3 7.75 Mb
Mark Vox - Don't Wanna Wait [Queenside Recordings] / Key Gm, BPM 125, 3:58, MP3 9.69 Mb
Menori - Nirvighnam [• kosa •] / Key F#m, BPM 118, 9:44, MP3 23.75 Mb
Menori - Wah Yantee [• kosa •] / Key Am, BPM 122, 5:46, MP3 14.25 Mb
Miami Shakers - Addicted To You [Queenside Recordings] / Key Abm, BPM 124, 2:21, MP3 5.81 Mb
Milosh K, Victor Special - Just Believe [SounEmot State] / Key Ebm, BPM 138, 7:43, MP3 18.77 Mb
Monsters At Work - Smartwater [Erva Doce Records] / Key Dm, BPM 126, 7:12, MP3 17.59 Mb
Mythopoet - Tariki [Systolic Label] / Key Am, BPM 144, 6:15, MP3 15.22 Mb
Nava - Session Deep [Lamp] / Key Bbm, BPM 128, 6:30, MP3 15.91 Mb
Nect3r - Shake Your Body (Rough Mix) [Beatz Breakin Records] / Key Gm, BPM 128, 5:09, MP3 12.70 Mb
Nect3r - Shake Your Body (Trance Mix) [Beatz Breakin Records] / Key Ab, BPM 135, 6:18, MP3 15.44 Mb
Olya Gram, Andy Newtz - Take Me to the Stars (Gayax Remix) [SounEmot State] / Key G, BPM 140, 5:52, MP3 14.33 Mb
Omar Longoria - Pristine Kingdom [SounEmot State] / Key G, BPM 136, 4:33, MP3 11.16 Mb
Onra - Bkk Blues [All City Dublin] / Key Em, BPM 82, 1:42, MP3 4.50 Mb
Onra - Chocolate Thai [All City Dublin] / Key Gm, BPM 89, 1:45, MP3 4.61 Mb
Onra - Close Your Eyes And Remember [All City Dublin] / Key Fm, BPM 85, 2:40, MP3 6.79 Mb
Onra - Eternally Grateful [All City Dublin] / Key Am, BPM 129, 0:51, MP3 2.45 Mb
Onra - Hand In Hand [All City Dublin] / Key Cm, BPM 83, 2:41, MP3 6.86 Mb
Onra - How It's Supposed To Be [All City Dublin] / Key Fm, BPM 161, 2:31, MP3 6.45 Mb
Onra - In The Mist [All City Dublin] / Key D, BPM 163, 1:00, MP3 2.81 Mb
Onra - Masquerade [All City Dublin] / Key Am, BPM 132, 1:35, MP3 4.23 Mb
Onra - Memories [All City Dublin] / Key Gm, BPM 80, 2:12, MP3 5.69 Mb
Onra - Old Photos [All City Dublin] / Key Em, BPM 83, 1:49, MP3 4.77 Mb
Onra - One More Time [All City Dublin] / Key Fm, BPM 87, 1:27, MP3 3.90 Mb
Onra - Purple Flowers [All City Dublin] / Key Em, BPM 88, 2:36, MP3 6.66 Mb
Onra - The Cost [All City Dublin] / Key Bb, BPM 156, 1:30, MP3 4.00 Mb
Onra - The Man Who Owed The Money [All City Dublin] / Key Em, BPM 174, 2:07, MP3 5.50 Mb
Onra - Under The Frangipani Tree [All City Dublin] / Key Cm, BPM 84, 2:24, MP3 6.15 Mb
Onra - Until The End [All City Dublin] / Key Bm, BPM 152, 2:19, MP3 5.99 Mb
Onra - You Know [All City Dublin] / Key F#m, BPM 76, 1:56, MP3 5.06 Mb
Pao Calderon - The Night [DTL Sounds] / Key Cm, BPM 130, 5:49, MP3 14.25 Mb
Paul Pentoxide - Ayla [Lamp] / Key Fm, BPM 110, 3:04, MP3 7.65 Mb
Paul Pentoxide - Bastil [Lamp] / Key Am, BPM 110, 2:46, MP3 6.94 Mb
Piero Forte, Dvit Bousa - Spasc Symphony [Chimba Records International] / Key F#m, BPM 126, 4:04, MP3 10.06 Mb
Piso Con Vistas - Brujos (Club Edit) [Superkinki Music] / Key Bm, BPM 126, 3:24, MP3 8.25 Mb
Playa Del Karma, Poulper - Under the Moon [Quixotical Records] / Key G, BPM 130, 4:46, MP3 11.73 Mb
Recardo - Acid Boots [Sifting Sands] / Key C, BPM 117, 5:33, MP3 13.36 Mb
Recardo - Adrift [Sifting Sands] / Key Em, BPM 117, 5:08, MP3 12.38 Mb
Recardo - Arco [Sifting Sands] / Key Am, BPM 114, 4:08, MP3 10.11 Mb
Recardo - Bose [Sifting Sands] / Key Fm, BPM 117, 6:43, MP3 16.19 Mb
Recardo - Bring It Back [Sifting Sands] / Key Fm, BPM 123, 7:50, MP3 18.85 Mb
Recardo - Chant [Sifting Sands] / Key Abm, BPM 123, 8:52, MP3 21.33 Mb
Recardo - Contrails [Sifting Sands] / Key G, BPM 120, 4:50, MP3 11.65 Mb
Recardo - Curve [Sifting Sands] / Key Ab, BPM 93, 5:37, MP3 13.58 Mb
Recardo - Day One [Sifting Sands] / Key F#m, BPM 128, 6:18, MP3 15.23 Mb
Recardo - Det [Sifting Sands] / Key Ebm, BPM 119, 5:10, MP3 12.58 Mb
Recardo - Donatello [Sifting Sands] / Key Dbm, BPM 119, 3:51, MP3 9.33 Mb
Recardo - Forget Paradise [Sifting Sands] / Key G, BPM 125, 9:22, MP3 22.67 Mb
Recardo - Form Follows Function [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 114, 9:05, MP3 21.98 Mb
Recardo - Gloss [Sifting Sands] / Key Dm, BPM 120, 5:51, MP3 14.13 Mb
Recardo - Goodnight Jesse [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 122, 9:12, MP3 22.20 Mb
Recardo - Grid [Sifting Sands] / Key Am, BPM 137, 5:16, MP3 12.70 Mb
Recardo - I [Sifting Sands] / Key Db, BPM 148, 1:58, MP3 4.79 Mb
Recardo - Lake [Sifting Sands] / Key Ab, BPM 117, 6:00, MP3 14.59 Mb
Recardo - Little White Lies [Sifting Sands] / Key Am, BPM 149, 6:59, MP3 16.89 Mb
Recardo - Loose [Sifting Sands] / Key Fm, BPM 122, 6:55, MP3 16.79 Mb
Recardo - Nomad [Sifting Sands] / Key Gm, BPM 133, 7:34, MP3 18.25 Mb
Recardo - Oil Bath [Sifting Sands] / Key Em, BPM 121, 8:40, MP3 20.86 Mb
Recardo - One [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 129, 5:15, MP3 12.78 Mb
Recardo - Outsiders [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 120, 5:57, MP3 14.32 Mb
Recardo - Over and Out [Sifting Sands] / Key C, BPM 120, 2:11, MP3 5.30 Mb
Recardo - Pegasus [Sifting Sands] / Key Em, BPM 118, 8:49, MP3 21.25 Mb
Recardo - Prototype [Sifting Sands] / Key Am, BPM 128, 5:09, MP3 12.41 Mb
Recardo - Reality Chek [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 123, 9:44, MP3 23.52 Mb
Recardo - Red Descent [Sifting Sands] / Key Em, BPM 107, 8:56, MP3 21.49 Mb
Recardo - Red Key [Sifting Sands] / Key B, BPM 124, 5:47, MP3 13.99 Mb
Recardo - Second Skin [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 126, 6:03, MP3 14.61 Mb
Recardo - Simotaur [Sifting Sands] / Key Dbm, BPM 129, 4:05, MP3 9.87 Mb
Recardo - The Patch [Sifting Sands] / Key Gm, BPM 100, 6:47, MP3 16.36 Mb
Recardo - Toth [Sifting Sands] / Key Fm, BPM 128, 3:23, MP3 8.22 Mb
Recardo - Transmission [Sifting Sands] / Key Gm, BPM 128, 9:12, MP3 22.12 Mb
Recardo - Two [Sifting Sands] / Key Abm, BPM 131, 10:00, MP3 24.11 Mb
Recardo - Unknown Dub [Sifting Sands] / Key Am, BPM 120, 5:02, MP3 12.26 Mb
Recardo - Vortex [Sifting Sands] / Key Gm, BPM 120, 5:25, MP3 13.04 Mb
Recardo - Why [Sifting Sands] / Key Cm, BPM 120, 6:15, MP3 15.12 Mb
Recardo - Zero [Sifting Sands] / Key Dm, BPM 116, 4:35, MP3 11.07 Mb
Recardo - Zero G [Sifting Sands] / Key Abm, BPM 94, 4:10, MP3 10.04 Mb
Red Pulse - Angel [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Gm, BPM 140, 4:21, MP3 10.73 Mb
Red Pulse - Effected [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Fm, BPM 130, 5:34, MP3 13.66 Mb
Red Pulse - I See Heaven [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Gm, BPM 142, 4:47, MP3 11.78 Mb
Red Pulse - Is My Time [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Gm, BPM 142, 4:10, MP3 10.29 Mb
Red Pulse - Special [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Am, BPM 142, 4:02, MP3 9.96 Mb
Red Pulse - Wonderfull One [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Abm, BPM 142, 5:53, MP3 14.42 Mb
Red Pulse, BlackHood - Remember [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Em, BPM 140, 4:48, MP3 11.81 Mb
Red Pulse, InsideOut BR - See It Coming [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Dbm, BPM 142, 5:33, MP3 13.62 Mb
Red Pulse, YAAN - Seremos Livres feat. Yaan [Ubuntu Psy Records] / Key Gm, BPM 142, 4:20, MP3 10.70 Mb
Repart - Dandelion [Systolic Label] / Key Dm, BPM 128, 6:00, MP3 14.63 Mb
Roman Crash, Odarka - Vesnyanca [Gonivo Records] / Key Dm, BPM 120, 5:44, MP3 14.11 Mb
S.F.A - Umoya [Euphoric Echo Records] / Key Dbm, BPM 113, 6:49, MP3 16.72 Mb
SHADXWBLXDE, Kxstanax - STAY BACK! [Merphi Music Group] / Key Cm, BPM 107, 2:42, MP3 6.74 Mb
SLAYJAY - Wanderlust [Future Cuts] / Key G, BPM 126, 3:11, MP3 8.03 Mb
STI Project - Dreaming You [Queenside Recordings] / Key F#m, BPM 123, 2:30, MP3 6.17 Mb
Sam Fletcher, Ruslan Aschaulov - Awakening [SounEmot State] / Key B, BPM 138, 7:53, MP3 19.14 Mb
Siki - Stay Close [Siki] / Key D, BPM 128, 2:38, MP3 6.47 Mb
Stormy - BBOY [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key G, BPM 138, 4:24, MP3 10.80 Mb
Stormy - Connect [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key Fm, BPM 116, 4:25, MP3 10.82 Mb
Stormy - Miss Honey [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key Bbm, BPM 147, 5:12, MP3 12.69 Mb
Stormy - Nervousness [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key Gm, BPM 145, 5:24, MP3 13.21 Mb
Stormy - Out of range [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key Cm, BPM 125, 4:13, MP3 10.37 Mb
Stormy - Runnin Out [Diffuse Reality Records] / Key Gm, BPM 138, 4:45, MP3 11.64 Mb
Sub Accent - V-Trancer [Systolic Label] / Key Em, BPM 133, 5:51, MP3 14.25 Mb
Thanatos, KAT3X - DOPE (RAVE ON) [KATEXIS] / Key Fm, BPM 157, 6:07, MP3 15.02 Mb
Thanatos, Tracy - SHOCK (Original) [KATEXIS] / Key Abm, BPM 127, 7:49, MP3 19.10 Mb
The Electric Mist Orchestra - Caught Adrift [Lamp] / Key A, BPM 120, 3:58, MP3 9.83 Mb
The Watermelon Summer Crew - Have A Good Time (Dub Mix) [Superkinki Music] / Key Dm, BPM 124, 2:53, MP3 7.03 Mb
Tosca - Un Marciano Sentado en el Ala (Remix) [TOSCA] / Key Ebm, BPM 132, 2:29, MP3 6.05 Mb
Turtlecommercial - NEWJEANS (Sped Up) [Broke] / Key Em, BPM 134, 2:03, MP3 5.08 Mb
VicTone - Smash Hit [SounEmot State] / Key Bbm, BPM 140, 5:45, MP3 14.05 Mb
Vicious Pink - Alien Patience [Minimal Wave] / Key F#m, BPM 72, 5:20, MP3 13.19 Mb
Vicious Pink - Chaos 303 [Minimal Wave] / Key Dm, BPM 125, 3:32, MP3 8.90 Mb
Vicious Pink - Move Up Closer [Minimal Wave] / Key Dm, BPM 113, 2:19, MP3 5.98 Mb
Vicious Pink - Night Drive [Minimal Wave] / Key Abm, BPM 133, 3:21, MP3 8.43 Mb
Vicious Pink - Not Your Kind of Girl [Minimal Wave] / Key Db, BPM 120, 3:33, MP3 8.91 Mb
Vicious Pink - Perpendicular [Minimal Wave] / Key Am, BPM 116, 3:09, MP3 7.95 Mb
Vicious Pink - Slightly Ahead [Minimal Wave] / Key Am, BPM 115, 2:18, MP3 5.92 Mb
Vicious Pink - So You Want To Love Me? [Minimal Wave] / Key Cm, BPM 121, 3:38, MP3 9.14 Mb
Vicious Pink - South Side [Minimal Wave] / Key Em, BPM 135, 3:39, MP3 9.15 Mb
Vicious Pink - Undercover [Minimal Wave] / Key Dm, BPM 126, 6:15, MP3 15.42 Mb
Yamato Daka, D33tro7 - Spaceballs [Kinkanahia Music] / Key Bb, BPM 130, 4:29, MP3 10.95 Mb
arium pol - Senegal [Pollen Music] / Key C, BPM 144, 3:52, MP3 9.77 Mb
arium pol - oh, darling [Pollen Music] / Key C, BPM 138, 1:32, MP3 4.18 Mb
arium pol - rozmowa [Pollen Music] / Key Em, BPM 132, 4:04, MP3 10.24 Mb
arium pol - what I've got to do [Pollen Music] / Key Dbm, BPM 146, 3:32, MP3 8.98 Mb
arium pol - what were you thinking? [Pollen Music] / Key Gm, BPM 140, 4:00, MP3 10.09 Mb
dogg jaw - Glimmer [Lamp] / Key Abm, BPM 139, 7:57, MP3 19.39 Mb
Ömer Said - So Long [Mark Music] / Key Em, BPM 105, 5:04, MP3 12.34 Mb
Øsc - Nibiru [Systolic Label] / Key Ab, BPM 128, 7:45, MP3 18.82 Mb
​
DOWNLOAD - progonlymusic com

When I first bought my Toyota car from the showroom they organized the insurance with this company as their official partner, and I renewed it this year without any claims.
Unfortunately had an accident , one car hit me while I stopped in traffic month ago and now waiting more than 2 weeks for the insurance approval.
Toyota body shop informed that they can’t reach the insurance company so I called them several times , emailed them but no response. They don’t answer, don’t pick up the phone and call center hangs up after a few minutes.
Bear in mind this is not orient but “orient Takaful” their address is full of bad reviews
their website is orienttakaful.ae
the provided email adress on the policy as [motorclaims@orienttakaful.ae](mailto:motorclaims@orienttakaful.ae) is not functional giving host not available response.
Did I just scammed by this people? How come Toyota all Futtaim sells their brand new cars with this insurance? Leave alone the car is still waiting to be repaired how I will claim a replacement and go to work ?
I’m in shock without utter response or communication from these people being represented as official Al Futtaim insurance company via the Toyota showroom.
Check their google comments : https://maps.app.goo.gl/whqyWsLWXiemfjjf8?g_st=ic
Last thing : do you recommend any motor car insurance professional with good communication and providing replacement car properly ?

Please excuse me for not bracketing cards for the bot links.
I have a Lathril deck that’s geared towards pulling out a “add G for each [Elf/Creature]” Elf Dork asap, usually by turn 3-4, but for my fastest win, turn 2. Then play Lathril turn 3. Skip to combat, swing Lathril turn 4 and win with Staff of Domination by tapping Dork for 4 mana. Cast Staff with lands. Then proceed to win with Lathril by casting your deck with your infinite mana on turn 4 and untapping Lathril.
However, the deck also has decent grind on backup for longer games like Phyrexian Arena and Toski. Exquisite Huntmaster for tokens on backup when I need them to tap more mana from dorks. Creature Search/Tutors and all are included as well. For the swing backup, things like Banner are included or some Elf Lords (which some of the dorks naturally are lords)
I’ve seen Shalai and Halar and also Pantlaza.
Between the two, Pantlaza looks fun but I’m wondering if anyone can answer if he can be geared toward infinite blink combos, and how reliably?
Shalai seems fun to play but shallow at its core. I’m not sure how much I’ll enjoy playing it. Though the deck seems potent with the removal, as well as the fact that it’s commander damage pings as well? Please correct me if wrong on that.
Are there any other good combocentric commanders that allow you to play swing as a potent back up during grindy games?
EDIT: I have an Aesi precon I’ve been holding onto. Is he any good for combo/swinging?

My phone vibrated. As did my smartwatch. I glimpsed up from my laptop, which was sitting in my lap so I could go over my presentation again. I was in the car, my boss was driving and we were headed to a conference, where both of us were supposed to speak. We were traveling for more than 7 hours now due to numerous traffic jams on our way.
Looking at my watch, I saw, it was the doorbell which caused the vibration. Already distracted from my presentation I pulled out my phone. Opening the doorbell app, I just so see, that my wife asks Becky, our young black dogsitter with her DD boobs into the house. "Curious" I thought, my wife hadn't told me, she wanted to go out that evening. It was a Tuesday, so it was her usual day for her Zumba class, but that would have meant leaving the dogs alone for about 1 and a half hours, so no need for a dogsitter. However, judging from what little I had seen, Becky was wearing an extremely short black latex skirt and a minimalist latex crop top, the full outfit barely covering her tits, ass and pussy. In addition to a black leather collar, it looked like my wife had ordered her in with other stuff in mind than just watching the dogs, even if there was the possibility, Becky's outfit was just due to the 30+ degree heatwave we were having.
A few minutes later, my phone vibrated again. It was a text from my wife. "Heading out to Zumba". She followed it up with a picture of her in her sports dress. Due to the heat she only wore tight short pants, a very tight revealing top and her sports bra. So her petite size combined with her chubby figure and her big tits were easy to spot. "Looking great" I answered. "Have fun, love you". "You have any plans later?" She asked. "No" I answered. "I won't be able to make it to swimming today. I'm not even at the hotel yet. So just dinner with my boss and then I will head for the bed." I replied. "Ok" was the only answer I got.
My boss and I checked into the hotel and found a place to eat, when I got another message from my wife. It was a shower selfie from the gym, showing her having her tits soaped up. I had to make sure, nobody saw my developing boner below a napkin. And this was also unusual, as my wife normally prefers to shower at home. What did she have planned. "Going out?" I asked her. I didn't get an answer for a while. Then I got another selfie. My wife was now wearing a long, tight, black PU skirt, and a black leather corsage, which was barely able to keep her G-Cups inside. She also had makeup on and her black hair with a tint of red worked perfectly with her black lipstick. A second picture showed, that she did not wear panties, but a buttplug. "Gonna surprise Becky" was her answer to my previous question. "Let's check whether she obeyed" was the next text I got, before I had an incoming videocall from the group my wife had created for the three of us. I excused myself from the table and left the table, while keeping the lid of my phone case closed. I took a Bluetooth headset out of my pocket and went outside to take the call. As soon as I did, I had to hold my breath. My wife held up her phone in her car in a way, that Becky and I had perfect view of her cleavage, while Becky was clearly sitting on our terrace, wearing the earlier described outfit, her legs spread apart and her camera clearly showing that she also had inserted a buttplug and additionally a vibrator in her pussy, pleasuring herself. From her position I could see, that there was a very slim, but not zero chance she could be seen by a passing neighbor. "Good girl" I heard my wife's voice. "Expect me home in 20 minutes. Keep going with the vibrator but do not come before I'm home or you will regret it". "Yes Madam" was Becky's answer. "Now put on a show for my husband" my wife again commanded. I watched the vibrator going in and out her pink pussy, which contrasted nicely with her chocolate skin, before commanding her, to take down her top, revealing her double D's to the camera (and potentially the neighbors). She was hesitant at first. "I will tell my wife of your disobedience" was all I had to say. However, as much as I loved the show, I could not watch it till the end, as my boss now also came out of the restaurant, having paid the bill. So I cut the connection and we went on our way to the hotel.
When we arrived at the hotel, my boss asked, whether we wanted to go for a drink at the bar. At the same time, my wife had already sent me a selfie with our car on the garage and her playing on her pussy, presumably watching Becky somehow. "Are you ready to watch" was the caption. So I thanked my boss again for the dinner and excused myself to my hotel room. "Give me a couple of minutes" was my answer to my wife. "Hurry up" she wrote, accompanied by a picture below her skirt, showing her pink pussy and her fluids already flowing down her legs. I quickly setup my tablet and connected it to the WIFI. While I was doing this I received several messages from my wife. The first one was a picture, showing a top view into her corsage, showing clearly, that it was unable to really tame her tits, with her areolas already visible. If a neighbor saw her on the way from the car to the house, he would have quite a look. I was secretly hoping for that to happen. I know some of the neighbors had already checked out Becky or other visitors to our house when they arrived in playtime "clothes" but my wife so far had mostly gone unnoticed by the neighbors. The second picture was a screenshot from one of our bedroom cameras on my wife's phone, showing Becky, lying on her back, her tits once again hidden by her latex top, her legs spread wide open towards the camera. Her skirt had moved upwards and was lying on her hips. The buttplug was replaced by a vibrator, and she also had a vibrator inserted into her pussy. I admired once again the contrast of her pink flesh to the dark chocolate color of her body. "I have the remotes" my wife wrote with a winking emoji. "Hurry up, I'm horny". "Me too" I thought, "and it's not helping that you send me these pictures". Finally I had an internet connection ready and connected onto our home VPN to access the cameras. "I'm in" I wrote to my wife. "Going in" was her answer.
While I waited for my wife to appear, I watched Becky on the tablet. She was still pretty much in the same pose as before and I could only imagine, that she was in this pose, because my wife had ordered her so. She really loved to submit herself to both of us, what made the evenings with her fun. Suddenly I could see her shiver and heard hear moans getting louder. I could see her fighting, but ultimately losing the fight against her orgasm, induced by the two vibrators in her pussy and ass, controlled by my wife. Only a few seconds later I hear high heels coming up the stairs and my wife entering the room. She had added black, knee high leather boots to her already seducing outfit and held a small whip in her hand. I saw Becky's eyes widen, it was a mixture of lust and fear. "You know you can tell me to stop at any time if it is too much," my wife said ."It is fine, I dreamed about playing with a whip, just haven't done it yet. But please be gentle, "was Becky's answer. "Did I stutter, when I told you not to come?" My wife now said in a fake angry voice. She followed it up with a lash onto her top and the boob below. I could hear the sound and I saw Becky flinch for a split-second. But her eyes told, that she was okay with what happened. "Sorry Madam. It was just to much pleasure you gave me with the vibrators," Becky whispered. "So now this is my fault you cannot control yourself?" My wife asked while still faking anger, followed by a lash onto the other boob. "No Madam, I did not obey your orders. What can I do to make it up?" "That will be up to me, I already have some ideas." My wife said to her, while she positioned a few whiplashes around Becky's pussy. You could already see the mixture of pain and lust in Becky's eyes.
From the messages before, and the show I got on camera my cock was already more than rock hard and I hurried to get rid off my pants and boxers, to release the pain this was causing me. That was when I realized, the blinds were still open, so I corrected this mistake quickly. No need to be seen masturbating in a conference hotel.
On my screen the action now got more intense. "Why are you still dressed?" My wife asked. I laughed out, because the short top and the extremely short skirt that was already hanging on Becky's hips could barely be counted as dressed, as she didn't even wear any underwear. "Get these skimpy clothes of your body" was the next command. To reinforce this statement two whiplashes onto each boob were added. Becky quickly got up, robbing me of the view between her legs and wanted to pull her top over her head, her back to my wife and the camera. She was interrupted by a whiplash onto her ass, as the skirt still was hanging on her hips. This time my wife seemingly had put more force into it, as for a short time you could see the impact on Becky's chocolate skin. "No need to hide. Make it a show for me and the camera". Becky obeyed. She turned around and started pulling up her top above her DD tits, covering them with her hands, playing a little bit by pushing them left right and up and down before performing a boob drop and finally pushing her top over her head. She let it turn around one of her fingers before throwing it on the general direction of my wife. While her boobs are a lot smaller than my wife's G-Cups, due to her taller but skinnier stature and chocolate color, those were my second favorite boobs. Her areolas were forward facing and she had quite a gap in between them. And they looked incredibly sexy in the current lighting, bouncing with every of Becky's movements. My wife nodded approvingly. Afterwards Becky started pulling down her skirt while moving laszivly. Her boobs and her hips moving while she slowly hid her pussy before revealing it again. She got down on her knees, spreading her legs for my wife and me before she got out of the skirt, pushed it aside and got up again. Unfortunately for her, the vibrator fell out of her pussy during this movement. A second later she got another whiplash on her pussy. "Did I tell you to loose the vibrator?" My wife said in a harsh voice. "No Madam." Becky said, lowering her head. "Well, then pick it up and put it where it belongs again. Becky started bending her knees and lowering her back, when she was once again interrupted by a whiplash targeted at her right tit. "Not like that. Turn around and bend over, we want to see your ass." I think I caught a short grin on Becky's face. She definitely did not mind what my wife did to her. She turned around, spread her legs so I would be able to see her face and upper body between them, bent over, wiggled with her ass, which of course also caused her tits to wiggle in front of her face. This of course also revealed the vibrator in her butt. Just when Becky had her fingers on the vibrator on the floor I could hear her moan and saw her legs shaking. My wife now stood besides her, facing the camera holding the remote in the hand that did not hold the whip. With shaking hands from arousal Becky tried to take up the vibrator again, and just when her fingers were there, my wife increased the intensity with the remote again, leading to Becky losing control and collapsing on the floor. As soon as her body hit the floor another whiplash hit her ass. "Am I talking incomprehensibly? You are not to come without my permission and you are asked to get this vibrator into your worthless pussy while showing your fucking ass. What is so hard about that?" While talking, my wife added additional whiplashes onto her ass with a couple of them also hitting the pussy area. "I'm sick of this, now get your worthless body onto the bed and open your legs to the camera". "Yes Madam" was the only answer from Becky. When she got up I glimpsed a look in her face and saw it was pure lust, despite the pain.
Up until now I had started playing with myself. The view and sound on my tablet were just to arousing. I realized, that I was already close to cumming, but there would be more action for me to watch. Nevertheless I couldn't stop, and a few quick strokes and I came in 3 high squirts over my upper body. In the meanwhile the action on the screen continued.
As ordered, Becky lay down as she had been before only now her tits were also clearly visible on camera. My wife bent down herself, making sure I got a good show and picked up the vibrator Becky had failed to pick up twice. She shoved it into Becky's pussy again, before she used the remote again to set both vibrators in Becky's ass an pussy to their lowest setting again. Becky's pelvis moved, as the overstimulation was to much again. My wife once again addressed her: "This should be about me, not you! Time you put your body to some use. Now get me out of my skirt." She ordered, standing next to the bed, with her ass to the camera. Becky sat up, her open pussy still facing the camera and giving me a prime look at her tits. She undid my wife's belt and started pulling down the skirt. My wife supported this with very erotic moves and just a few seconds later I had the perfect view onto the greatest ass in the galaxy. The right roundness, perfect size, perfect shape and feel and just overall perfect for me. My wife pushed Becky back onto the bed, while at the same time bending over, revealing the buttplug and vibrator she had in herself. This movement was also to much for her corsage and her tits fell out. "Make yourself useful and suck on my tits!" was her next command, to which Becky promptly obeyed while my wife made quite a show out of removing the vibrator from her pussy. She spread her legs, shaking that great ass and slowly pulled out the vibrator millimeter by millimeter and pushing it in 5 millimeters in again for every 10 millimeters she had pulled it out. When she was done, she climbed onto the bed sat up and pushed Becky's upper body down. She then climbed over Becky's face and began riding on her face. Becky understood what to do and gave her best to luck my wife's pussy. My wife's boobs jumped around on her chest, which made her abandon her whip and she started massaging and playing with them, while leaning slightly backwards. This gave me a great view and made me hard again in an instant. Also due to my wife's movements on the bed, Becky's tits started to wiggle, but she needed her hands to ensure my wife's thighs had sufficient space in between for her not to suffocate. This got more and more difficult, as my wife quickly approached her orgasm. It took her less than 2 minutes before she collapsed forward, her face more or less falling onto Becky's pussy. My wife catched her breath for half a minute or so, before she pulled herself up again, grabbed her whip and climbed down from Becky. Becky's face was covered in my wife's fluids, it almost looked like my wife had squirted onto Becky's face. Becky also sat up and catched her breath.
My wife held up Becky's face by placing her whip below her chin. "Good girl, seems like you are good for something. I think you have earned some reward." She said and gave Becky two gentle whiplashes onto her nipples, which made Becky moan again. My wife bent down beside the bed, showing me her great ass with the buttplug again and opened our toy drawer. She grabbed a blindfold and tossed it to Becky. "Put that on, and get on your knees, face to the camera." Becky went on her knees and elbows, what resulted in a harsh whiplash on her ass. "On your hands, not your elbows" and as Becky took to long for her liking, a second whiplash followed. Now Becky obeyed and stayed more upright. Next my wife went, and repositioned the camera, so now the camera was low enough to look between Becky's legs. Next, my wife pulls out a dual vibrator we had bought recently. She inserted the short part as advertised into her vagina and went behind Becky. She then removed the vibrators from Becky's pussy and ass and slowly started to insert the long part of the double vibrator into Becky's pussy. I was able to see Becky's surprised look through the blindfold, as my wife's pelvis touched Becky's ass and she realized, what was happening. The next surprise came, when my wife activated the vibrations and started fucking her Doggystyle. I was almost in heaven. Seeing a pair of DD tits bouncing in the big picture, and my wife's G-Cups also bouncing in the background while my wife grabbed Becky by the hips and gave her a pounding was an absolutely fantastic view. This went on for about 10 minutes, with me wanking of in my hotel bed, my wife pounding the dogsitter Doggystyle and the dogsitter moaning loudly. It seemed, the double vibrator had some kind of burst mode, as both women increased and decreased their volume in regular intervals. After 10 minutes the two women collapsed over each other from their orgasm and I also came again.
After everyone had catched their breath again, my wife told Becky she could go home now, she would still make the last train even with some time to wash herself. After Becky was gone, my wife and myself had video call under our showers. After that we said goodnight. My wife told me, to have fun on the conference reception the next day, but to not forget my camera...

Welcome to our Daily Questions thread!

Feel free to post all general fashion-related questions here! Hopefully this can help users answer questions they may have where they may not want to make a whole new thread and keep sub posts related to petite-specific concerns.
To help ensure that you receive the most helpful answers from other users, please include as many relevant details in your post as possible. Helpful details may include:

• Budget
• Location (general such as city/country - no addresses)
• Pictures (upload to Imgur or another image-hosting site)

What kind of posts are allowed?

• General fashion questions
  • e.g., "What are your favourite brands?"
  • e.g., "Where can I find quality pants for less than $50?"
• General outfit questions
  • e.g., "What accessories do you recommend with this outfit?"
  • e.g., "Do these shoes look flattering with these pants?"

Hi Reddit, I'm Anthony. Sorry for posting this ad in the feed. I browse Reddit a lot but rarely, if ever post. I know this is annoying but I really believe this tool can help many of you build your tech products more efficiently.
For the past 16 years, I've been helping people with app and tech ideas design and develop their products. But we found that many of them struggled to communicate their ideas (e.g., giving only two- or three-word answers in key product surveys).
That's why I began developing DevReady.ai to solve this problem using AI/LLMs as an internal tool. We wanted to give the guidance to our clients to ideate and design an app’s functionality before diving into UI design and development at scale.
But we were blown away by the overwhelmingly positive feedback… This motivated us to release the DevReady Brief feature to the public during the alpha phase.
And now, DevReady.ai is already used by over 60 users across 20 organisations. One customer said it helped them achieve in a week what would normally take months. Another shared it would have saved them 2 years and $500,000 which has been incredibly reaffirming… This is exactly why we built DevReady.ai.
So if you have an idea (be it for a startup or in a business looking to improve efficiency / commercialise a product idea), I’d really love for you to try DevReady.ai out for free for yourself and give us your thoughts at https://devready.ai.
AMA about building DevReady.ai, how AI is transforming the software planning process, or the common pitfalls I've seen non-technical founders make in the last 16 years. My team and I welcome any feedback or thoughts!
Anthony, Founder @ DevReady.ai
TL/DR: As a developer, I've seen too many founders rush into building tech products unprepared, often losing $500K+ and 2 years. I created DevReady.ai, a free AI-powered platform that helps founders thoroughly plan their tech ideas before starting development. It condenses months of planning into days, saving time, money, and headaches. The "DevReady Brief" feature is now available for anyone to try for free.

Hi Reddit, I'm Anthony. Sorry for posting this ad in the feed. I browse Reddit a lot but rarely, if ever post. I know this is annoying but I really believe this tool can help many of you build your tech products more efficiently.
For the past 16 years, I've been helping people with app and tech ideas design and develop their products. But we found that many of them struggled to communicate their ideas (e.g., giving only two- or three-word answers in key product surveys).
That's why I began developing DevReady.ai to solve this problem using AI/LLMs as an internal tool. We wanted to give the guidance to our clients to ideate and design an app’s functionality before diving into UI design and development at scale.
But we were blown away by the overwhelmingly positive feedback… This motivated us to release the DevReady Brief feature to the public during the alpha phase.
And now, DevReady.ai is already used by over 60 users across 20 organisations. One customer said it helped them achieve in a week what would normally take months. Another shared it would have saved them 2 years and $500,000 which has been incredibly reaffirming… This is exactly why we built DevReady.ai.
So if you have an idea (be it for a startup or in a business looking to improve efficiency / commercialise a product idea), I’d really love for you to try DevReady.ai out for free for yourself and give us your thoughts at https://devready.ai.
AMA about building DevReady.ai, how AI is transforming the software planning process, or the common pitfalls I've seen non-technical founders make in the last 16 years. My team and I welcome any feedback or thoughts!
Anthony, Founder @ DevReady.ai
TL/DR: As a developer, I've seen too many founders rush into building tech products unprepared, often losing $500K+ and 2 years. I created DevReady.ai, a free AI-powered platform that helps founders thoroughly plan their tech ideas before starting development. It condenses months of planning into days, saving time, money, and headaches. The "DevReady Brief" feature is now available for anyone to try for free.

https://bgodinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1716290367.png

The Enigmatic King Ahab: A Journey Through His Life in the Bible

Welcome to a fascinating exploration of one of the Bible’s most complex figures, King Ahab. Whether you’re a seasoned biblical scholar or new to the scriptures, Ahab’s story offers a captivating look into the highs and lows of his reign, his relationship with the prophet Elijah, and the lessons we can draw from his life today. Ready to dive in?

A Closer Look at Ahab’s Reign

King Ahab, the son of Omri, stepped into the annals of history as the seventh king of Israel, reigning for 22 years. His rule, chronicled in 1 Kings 16:29 through 22:40, was marked by economic prosperity but also deep spiritual waywardness. Marrying Jezebel, a princess from Sidon, Ahab introduced and promoted the worship of Baal, leading the Israelites further away from God.

• Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel influenced his reign and led to the elevation of Baal worship.
• Despite God’s repeated calls to return to Him, Ahab’s actions often aligned more with his personal desires and political alliances than God’s commands.

Engagements with the Prophet Elijah

One of the most electrifying parts of Ahab’s story involves his confrontations with Elijah, a prophet of God. From the dramatic declaration of a drought in 1 Kings 17:1 to the unforgettable fire-from-heaven incident on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18), Ahab and Elijah’s interactions highlight the clash between God’s truth and the false worship promoted by Ahab and Jezebel.

1. The challenge on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18) showcases a defining moment for Ahab, Elijah, and the people of Israel, reminding us of the power of true faith in God.
2. Elijah’s fearless proclamation of God’s judgment and his eventual victory on Mount Carmel serve as enduring lessons in courage and divine justice.

Lessons from Ahab’s Story

Ahab’s life serves as a powerful cautionary tale about the dangers of compromising one’s faith and the consequences of leading others astray. Despite moments of humility before God, Ahab’s story ultimately illustrates the paramount importance of steadfast loyalty to God.

• The importance of maintaining faith in God, despite societal pressures or personal desires.
• The impact of one’s actions and decisions on their legacy and on the people they lead.

Conclusion

King Ahab’s story, while fraught with mistakes and missteps, is a potent reminder of the enduring relevance of biblical teachings. It prompts us to reflect on our own lives, encouraging us to pursue a path aligned with faith and integrity. In the face of today’s challenges, may we draw inspiration from the scriptures, embracing clarity, courage, and a steadfast commitment to what is righteous and true.
Feeling inspired to learn more about the profound characters and events of the Bible? Dive deeper into the scriptures with us as we continue to explore and uncover the timeless wisdom contained within its pages. Join us on this remarkable journey of faith, and let the stories of the past enlighten your path forward.
If you want to want to research more Bible Answers on your own, please try our Bible Answers GPT. It’s easy to get lost in the interesting responses you’ll find… every search is like a new treasure hunt 🙂
Source =

So one day i got an error like this:
"Google verify your identity."
i tried numbers from all over the world, AUS, USA, UK, UAE, Pakistan, India, France. i used my number and many other numbers, and almost all of em were never used for a google account before but they weren't working, i got the error of the number used too many times or something went wrong. anyways i was unable to access my account and some time later i tried to login and got this:
"your account is disabled" (real ss)
now i've tried every appeal i could, i watched tutorials, reported on google nd other forums, but no answers. even though i'm sure the account got suspended because of me trying to verify my identity (i waited 2 days after each try)
"Google Appeal Page"
but i still tried to cover every other aspect imaginable or feasiable. but in vain. can you guys please help me out? my account contains important files & i really need em. thanks for reading.

Almost every time I visit my aging parents (about twice a month, often for Sunday dinner), my Mom has some chores for me to help, e.g. trying to repair things, help lifting things etc. since my Dad is not able to help.Yesterday, after greeting me, she said: you could not have come at a better time, my printer is acting up. I work in IT and I responded: "My work ended two hours ago, I told you before, I am not going to help you with this old printer again (which I had set up a few years ago taking over two hours and had technical issues), you need to buy a new one. Every time, I am visiting you guys have things for me to do". I mentioned several things , I had done in the past. She denied that this was every time, I am visiting and I got upset, asking whether she is trying to gaslight me. She went upstairs back to her printer and never came back down during my 45 min stay. When I was leaving, she came downstairs and I asked her whether the printer is still having problems to which she answered: "don'l worry about it".. AITHA that I initially refused to check the problem but in the end was willing to help?

Recently, I was speaking with some native Spanish speakers, and during our conversations, they were surprised by some of what I brought up about Spanish that they didn’t even realize was true. One of them, a person who teaches the language, was stunned to realize that, in Spanish, the word “vacation” is always in plural form (e.g. it’s never “la vacación”; it’s always “las vacaciones”).
This made me think about a saying I heard long ago: that in a certain manner, the language we understand the least is our native language. Some of us may have never actually felt the need to study its details, so we just take it for granted. Meanwhile, in learning another language, studying it is part of the process, so we pick up on these details along the way. We can see the results play out in videos like this.
How comfortable do you feel about understanding the details of your native language(s)? Feel free to answer in general or give specific examples.

Imma write some facts, probably will get downvoted for spreading the truth and not the memes of doomposters that no longer play the game and are uninformed.

• There are no bots, only highly motivated players that can't choose their nickname because we have taken all the good ones.
  
• The mats are enough, we can hone all the time
  
• The endgame content is fine, accesible to the playerbase and no shortage of lobbies of all kinds
  
• The new players can enjoy the game perfectly, everyone answer when you ask in english any question
  
• The new systems are fair, you are just a little unlucky, but everyone have the chance to try their luck
  
  • The devs play the game (in KR and global) and AGS as pusblisher does it too, they know the game is working perfectly fine and as intented, we keep growing as a playerbase in the last 3 months.
• Did you check the new west only skin? A m a z i n g. Such a great honor to recieve content first of this quality.
  

So in the end... Can you guys stop complaining? I know that currently the ingame shop is having some issues in europe, but it will be fixed fast as thats the only thing wrong.

Discover the 7 techniques essential for early childhood reading success. Explore expert tips and strategies to empower your child's literacy journey.

Introduction

In today's fast-paced world, literacy is a cornerstone of success. As parents, nurturing our children's reading abilities early sets a strong foundation for their future achievements. This comprehensive guide dives deep into the top strategies and techniques to foster early reading skills in children. From interactive storytelling to language-rich environments, discover how you can unlock your child's potential and pave the way for lifelong learning.

Use These 7 Techniques to Help Your Child Become an Early Reader

1. Immersive Storytelling Adventures

Immerse your child in captivating narratives that ignite their imagination and curiosity. Explore a myriad of storybooks ranging from classic fairy tales to educational adventures. Incorporate interactive elements like sound effects and role-playing to make reading sessions engaging and memorable.

2. Phonics Fun: Mastering Letter Sounds

Delve into the world of phonics to help your child grasp letter sounds effortlessly. Utilize interactive games and apps designed to reinforce phonemic awareness. Practice blending and segmenting sounds through playful activities, ensuring a strong foundation in phonics principles.

3. Building Vocabulary Brilliance

Expand your child's vocabulary through daily word exploration activities. Create word walls adorned with colorful visuals to reinforce new words. Encourage conversations and storytelling, providing ample opportunities for your child to use and understand diverse vocabulary in context.

4. Sight Word Mastery Made Simple

Empower your child with sight word mastery strategies for fluent reading. Incorporate flashcards, games, and repetition to reinforce high-frequency words. Celebrate milestones as your child confidently recognizes and reads sight words independently.

5. Engaging Literacy Environments

Craft literacy-rich environments at home and in educational settings. Create cozy reading nooks filled with a variety of books catering to your child's interests. Foster a love for reading through frequent library visits and participation in reading-themed events.

6. Interactive Read-Aloud Sessions

Enhance reading comprehension and critical thinking skills through interactive read-aloud sessions. Encourage active participation by asking open-ended questions and prompting discussions. Explore diverse genres and themes, nurturing a well-rounded approach to literature appreciation.

7. Empowering Parent-Child Partnerships

Cultivate strong parent-child partnerships centered around reading and learning. Engage in joint reading activities, modeling fluency and expression. Provide positive reinforcement and encouragement, fostering a supportive environment conducive to reading success.
Also Read: Exploring the Best Preschool Franchise Opportunities in India

FAQs: Your Burning Questions Answered

How can I motivate my child to read regularly?
Encourage reading as a fun and rewarding activity by incorporating incentives such as sticker charts or reading challenges.
What role does technology play in early literacy?
Technology can complement traditional methods by offering interactive learning platforms and digital libraries tailored to young readers.
Are audiobooks beneficial for developing reading skills?
Audiobooks can enhance listening comprehension and pronunciation while instilling a love for storytelling.
How can I identify my child's reading level?
Consult with educators or utilize reading assessment tools to determine your child's current reading proficiency and tailor activities accordingly.
What if my child shows reluctance towards reading?
Address underlying concerns or challenges by exploring alternative reading materials or seeking guidance from literacy specialists.
How do I create a literacy-friendly home environment?
Establish a dedicated reading space, stock it with age-appropriate books, and integrate reading into daily routines like bedtime stories.
Is it normal for children to progress at different rates in reading?
Yes, children develop reading skills at varying paces. Focus on providing individualized support and celebrating each milestone achieved.

Conclusion: Empowering Early Readers for Lifelong Success

In conclusion, nurturing early reading skills in children is a transformative journey filled with joy and discovery. By implementing the seven techniques outlined in this guide and fostering a nurturing reading environment, you're laying a solid foundation for your child's academic and personal growth. Embrace the power of literacy and watch as your child blossoms into a confident and enthusiastic reader, ready to embrace the world of knowledge and imagination.

Hi, i was analyzing these three great consumer defensive companies and i did up the data sheet in case anyone is interested.
All three are in a google sheet, you can get it here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16J-iyYcPQ6ae-XRvMXGslB1w3RdiE6aJGFSqLjtFPmc/edit?usp=sharing
some caveat on using the file:

• i removed all formulas, all valuation process and only included my conclusion
• also there is a table called "plan b", in which i try to work backwards on the expected earnings growth from to the current share price. for example, using the table, i find that the market is expected a 9% earnings growth from P&G.
• note that for UL, it is a ADR, but the financial nos are in EUR, but the Shareprice is in USD. I had to exclude several analyst estimates because they were not clear as no currency was specified.

Questions i wanted to find out: (and answers)

1. Which company is selling volume ontop of price increases?
2. Actually all three volume sales are trending up as the inflation eases
3. But UL is doing managing it better because CEO is under pressure
   
4. Which company is the most expensive, valuation-wise ?
   
5. Without a doubt PG is the most highly valued, because they have raised their dividends consistently every year over the last 67 years.
   
6. Plus they have the highest margin of all three as well as the highest return on capital.
   
7. Which company has the better efficiency metrics, ROE decomposition, etc ?
   
8. PG followed by UL followed by MDLZ
   
9. Which has the highest growth in Revenue and Earnings in the past 10 years?
   
10. See below, all three can do 5% for eps growth, 7 will be stretch and 9 will be an upside.
    
11. Which has the potential for highest earnings growth going forward?
    
12. Well, UL's new CEO has an activist investor on its board (and he was probably chosen by the activist investor too). He has fired a whole bunch of executives and has put up lower-margined magnum ice cream for sale.
    

Or maybe Modelez because people think their products as Oreo Cookies but actually 30% of their business is from Cadbury's chocolate, #1 in UK, India and probably Australia. And with Cocoa prices now almost 50% off the highs this year, i hope this will translate into higher margins and higher earnigns.
In general among the 3, PG is has the highest market cap, and is almost four times larger than its next competitor Unilever, even though its sales is only 42% more than the Unilever. MDLZ is more similar to Unilever, however although Unilever has 63% more revenue than MDLZ, its market cap is only 12% larger than MDLZ. I believe MDLZ and PG have a developed country premium, or you could view it as a difference in where PG has a highest market share among developed countries, and Unilever the least.
( this premium can be argued both ways, noted investor Terry Smith says that Unilever’s 60% business from emerging market is the key to future growth when more of their population reach middle-income and buy more of UL’s products. I am of the opinion that when the middle-incomes rises they will want more of premium products, not necessary those from Unilever. The downside of emerging markets is that consumers tend to bolt at price increases more than PG or MDLZ, which is exactly what is happening to UL. Their earnings call is a painful justification on how they intend to sell more volume versus price increase, analysts don’t see this as problem with PG and MDLZ even though their latest quarter had negative volume growth and more price increases)
In terms of margins, PG has the most beautiful margins that justifies the higher valuation, UL has higher gross margin but still loses out to MDLZ. In terms of ROE and the rockers, PG is the highest, followed by UL and in a distant, MDLZ. MDLZ’s ROIC is above the cost of capital, but it is pale in comparison to the other two.
If i want to be critical, i will say it MDLZ is bobbing up and down between the 9% line. This is not good if WACC is at 9% (most website puts it at 7-8% but I use 9% to be consistent )
In terms of growth rates,
Mdlz is supposed to have the highest sales but the reality is that they are probably all the same.
Argus Research puts 8/9/10% cagr for PG/MDLZ/UL but CS puts all three at 7%-ish EPS growth.
In terms of valuation, i used 5% for UL/MLDZ instead, except for PG at 7%, and Plan-B is sizing PG at 9% based on the current share price.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; 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. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

"Good-bye, lover-- It's been fun... And I always did want to go in battle. You get to keep your planet, kid... Don't forget me... Don't forget me"
Bio: Val Armorr was the son of Japan's greatest crimelord, Kirau Nezumi, also known as Black Dragon, When he was born, his mother, the American secret agent Valentina Armorr, tried to hide him from his father, but she failed and was killed for her affront. Japan's biggest hero Sensei Toshiaki, the White Crane, eventually killed Black Dragon for his crimes and adopted the infant Val. He raised Val as if he were his own son, and trained him in all manner of the martial arts.
Origin in scan form ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
Alternate look at his origin ^{(Secrets of the Legion of Super-Heroes #2})
Databook entries

• Superboy #205
• All-New Collector's Edition #55
• Who's Who: The Definitive Directory of the DC Universe #12
• Who's Who in the Legion of Superheroes #3
• DC Comics Encyclopedia: Updated and Expanded
• All New DC Comics Encyclopedia

Original Val

Strength
Note: Karate Kid needs to concentrate and channel his chi to perform feats of strength ^{(Adventure Comics #359})

• In his origin, chops through a steel beam ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Chops through a spaceship hull ^{(Adventure Comics #347})
• Lightning Lad flashes back to Karate Kid stopping a car with a single chop ^{(Adventure Comics #351})
• Knocks out a Jovian Mastodon and a Tricorn Beast with a single strike each, and judo throws a Sloth Ape ^{(Adventure Comics #358})
• Chops through two trees in one swing ^{(Adventure Comics #358})
• Analyzes some thick gates, then chops through them ^{(Adventure Comics #360})
• Kicks away a hover car ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Chops through a tank, then starts a small earthquake with a stomp ^{(Adventure Comics #367})
• Destroys a practice bot in a rage ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Claims his chops could fell giant redwoods ^{(Superboy vol 1 #203})
• Creates an earthquake with a stomp that breaks apart a statue ^{(Legion of Superheroes vol 3 #31})
  • Note: This is a flashback to earlier times, so despite being in vol 3, takes place Chronologically in vol 1, as shown by him wearing the brown gi instead of his more famous white one
• Punches through a robot ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Kicks a meteor to pieces ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Creates a counter-vibration strong enough to reverse Major Disaster's artificial earthquake. ^{(Karate Kid #2}.)
• Flexes off six cavemen ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• [MASSIVE OUTLIER] When bound with ropes made of indestructible Inertron, he somehow manages to break free. ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #231})
  • Album of Inertron being invulnerable/unbreakable/strong enough to resist Kryptonians
• Breaks out of a machine that saps powers, minds and will (Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 004)

Speed

• Moves "with the speed of thought" ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Dodges Mano and Persuader's attacks ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Dodges Validus' mental lightning ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Dodges a blast from the Emerald Eye of Ekon ^{(Superboy vol 1 #198})
• Dodges a blast from *sigh* Radiation Roy ^{(Superboy vol 1 #208})
• Rushes forward and front tuck into a Rider Kick in a fraction of a second ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Dodges a bolt from Lightning Lad ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Dodges radiation blasts from Nemesis Kid ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Intercepts a falling meteor ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Backflips over a bullet ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Dodges a laser ^{(Karate Kid #13})
• Leaps over a bullet and behind a guy in less than a fifth of a second ^{(Karate Kid #15})
• Dances around Pharoxx's strikes ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• Redirects Pharoxx's own magic against him ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})

Durability

• Survives an explosion that KO'd and nearly killed his sensei ^{(Adventure Comics #367})
• Smacked by a giant robot and recovers being back to fighting shape on the next page ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Endures ever-increasing pain through meditative techniques even though the pain was so bad, it made Timber Wolf go feral within a few minutes ^{(Superboy vol 1 #209})
• Clears his mind of mental influences ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #268})
• Wades though blasts from Pharoxx ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #288})
• While sick, takes a blast from Pulsar ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Pulsar explodes right next to him and he's all good. ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Gets clawed by a monster and shrugs it off ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• Gets blasted by Pharoxx's magic and recovers, while Pharoxx getting hit with the same blast made him immediately flee ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• [Limit] Dies after being beaten nearly to death by Nemesis Kid, then missile launches himself into a planet-draining machine. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #4})

Skill
Statements and styles

• Great Skill in all forms of martial arts, but especially Karate and Judo ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Master of all forms of fighting ^{(Adventure Comics #359})
• Switches from Boxing to Savate to Kendo against a robot ^{(Adventure Comics #363})
• Knocks some guys out with chops to the back of the neck ^{(Adventure Comics #360})
• Mastered every weapon form "from fencing foils to Jovian trident spears" ^{(Adventure Comics #368})
• Temporarily puts Timber Wolf in a Judo hold ^{(Superboy vol 1 #209})
• Falkone IV arm riflie technique ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Loback III restraining hold for non-powered people to restrain super-powered people ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Karate, Judo, "Arcturian Sli-tilla", "Venusian Txrxvrx", and boxing ("the good old one-two punch") in one page ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #268})

Against skilled opponents (Solo)

• Beats a boxing champion ^{(Adventure Comics #377})
• Beats the absolute stuffing out of Black Mace ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #31})
  • Black Mace is stated to be Ganglands's answer to Karate Kid ^{(Adventure Comics #374}) and a fast, strong invincible fighter ^{(Superboy #213})
• Beats Black Mask again, with an assist from Princess Projectra ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #31})
• Quickly beats a dual nunchaku wielding black belt ^{(Karate Kid #3})
• Beats the Samurai known as Master Hand ^{(Karate Kid #4})
• Had the advantage on Black Dragon II, the student of his father he previously beat in Superboy vol 1 #210 ^{(Karate Kid #10})
• Karate Kid vs Black Dragon II in a ceremonial fight. ^{(Karate Kid #10})
• Beats Dick Grayson quickly ^{(Karate Kid #14})
• Wins a tournament and the title of Samurai, going down as the youngest to gain the title ^{(Secret Origins vol 2 #47})

Against Skilled opponents (groups)

• Defeats three Black Belts he claims could waste a battalion of ordinary men ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Beats six opponents trained by his father, Black Dragon, including the future Black Dragon II ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Beats a bunch of 20th-century martial arts masters ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Quickly beats four martial artists ^{(Karate Kid #4})

Against superpowered opponents (1v1)

• Fights Superboy and does so well, Clark says he needs to be in the Legion ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Training with Superboy ^{(Adventure Comics #368})
• Gets the advantage over Don Allen, descendent of Barry Allen and a speedster ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Defeats Ultra Boy ^{(Adventure Comics #375})
• A brainwashed Karate Kid easily beats Ultra Boy ^{(Superboy vol 1 #205})
• Survives a fight with Superboy, though he constantly mentions he's outmatched and it's taking all of his skill to just survive . ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Temporarily holds Superboy, but admits he needs help immediately and is losing him and is saved by Mordru's magic wearing off ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #245})

Against Superpowered opponents (groups)

• Solos the Fatal Five ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Manages to hold his own against Lightning Lad, Superboy, Colossal Boy, Saturn Girl, Sun Boy, and Chameleon Boy before being stopped by Cosmic Boy ^{(Karate Kid #13})

Against Skilled Superpowered opponents

• Fights four superpowered assassins and is holding his own ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Beats Pharoxx of Orando in a sword fight, forcing Pharoxx to resort to magic ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #286})
• Beats Timber Wolf in a spar ^{(Legion of Superheroes vol 4 #52})

Accuracy

• Splits a rock so each half flies off and KOs a foe ^{(Adventure Comics 361})
• Hits a knight with a stone and KO's him ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #288})
• Uses his sash as a lasso to disarm Pulsar of his power staff ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})

Agility

• Rushes forward and front tuck into a Rider Kick in a fraction of a second ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Contorts himself in mid-air to stop himself from falling out of a building then Jumps back in ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Jumps from the street to a sign to a third story roof ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Does a series of flips to land safely after jumping out of a building while holding someone ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Jumps out of a window, does a ton of flips, and starts running on cars ^{(Karate Kid #3})
• Flips on a pole ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• Flips over a car ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• Flips out of Batman's grasp ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Rolls back to get out of a monster's range, then launches himself into a flying kick ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #309})

Weak Point Sensing

• Finds the weak point in a diamond ^{(Adventure Comics# 365})
• Finds the weak point in a wall ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Finds Omega's weakest point, but is too weak to capitalize on it ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #251}). This is the first time it's called an explicit "power" and not a skill.
• Finds the weak point in a hatch ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #277})
• Originally struggled to find a weak point in massive chains encircling Earth, but after getting a hint from Princess Projectra manages to sense and destroy it ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #279})

Retroboot Val

Despite dying.....Val Armorr's back and in the past! ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #7}) How? Never explained! ^{(Justice League of America #10}) Here's his feats. Note: All feats are done while he's dying (Countdown Weeks 14-15/ 38-37) from what's later revealed to be the Morticoccus Virus

• While disguised as a supervillain, freezes Parasite without Black Lightning realizing Parasite was the target ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #2})
• KO's Black Lightning with a chop to the neck and stalemates (and arguably has the advantage over) Batman while sick and memoryless ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #8})
  • Another view of the fight ^{(Countdown Week 2/#50})
  • Doctor Mid-Nite says Karate Kid very nearly took down Batman in that fight ^{(Countdown Week 7/#45})
  • Batman conceeds Val outfought him but claims he wouldn't in a rematch though he may have been being a jerk to get into Val's head ^{(Countdown Week 10/#42})
• Is still conscious and talking despite being loaded up with enough tranquilizers to give Wonder Woman trouble ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #8})
• Somehow survives Speed Force Lightning that should have insta-killed him ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #10})
• Finds the weak point in a vault he's sealed in ^{(Countdown Week 13/#39})
• Tears through Oracle's tendrils and punches through a wall ^{(Countdown Week 13/#39})
• Hurts Equus, an enhanced being who bragged he had fought Superman ^{(Countdown Week 16/#36})
• Kicked Equus arm clean off his body ^{(Countdown Week 17/#35})
• Breaks shotguns and kicks a police car over ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #21})
• [Limit] While he can dodge her attacks, can't move Supergirl with his strikes ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #21})
• Chops Equus arm off ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #22})
• [Limit] The closer to death he gets, the less he's able to focus and use Super-Karate feats ^{(Countdown week 32/#20})
• Takes out four Apokoliptians ^{(Countdown Week 41/#11})
• Takes a hit from an OMAC and shows some agility ^{(Countdown Week 42/#10})
• Dies of the virus ^{(Countdown Week 45/#7})
• Time Trapper puts his and Una's bodies in the mainline Earth when they had died in Earth-51 ^{(Action Comics #864})

Misc

• As a Legionnaire, he has a Legion flight ring ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Invited his 20th-century friend to his wedding, not realizing she was in love with him ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Man married a princess. Respect. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes Vol 2 annual 2})
• Brave enough to try to hit Darkseid with a flying kick, though all it accomplishes is knocking himself out. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #294})
• It's implied he somehow came back/will come back to life again, but this wasn't elaborated on because of the Flashpoint thanks Barry ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 6 #6})
  • Time Trapper also foreshadowed this ^{(Action Comics 864})

I ask because I found mine really stressful. I was quite anxious from the off as I'd never worked in O+G but had heard lots of horror stories about my local maternity unit from friends and colleagues. I was very worried about being seen as a difficult, over-medicalising doctor, and as a result I think I affected my own care. My midwife was very keen to buy into normal healthy births (midwives) vs. doctors who want to complicate things and spent most of the first appointment talking about what anxious mums doctors make. I had a few questions and each was brushed off. I was told to forget my medical degree and trust my body. I was high risk for developing pre-eclampsia and so took my own BP occasionally throughout. My midwife was really unhappy when she heard I was doing this and told me to stop as I wouldn't be able to interpret the numbers. I don't want to go into all the details but my community care felt generally haphazard, things were missed (including some quite important things that hospital consultants were later obviously not happy with), I spent most of my time seeing only student midwives and my own midwife went completely AWOL, so I missed my last community app as no one would book it for her and she wouldn't contact me or answer the phone. I ended up with reduced movements, pre-eclampsia and an emergency section. Whilst my hospital care was better, there were several times when I delayed my own treatment by not raising concerns (leading to delayed diagnoses of complications) because I was so worried that I'd be seen as difficult and like I was angling after a section (one midwife did make a comment about she 'suspected I'd be wanting a section'!)
Overall, I'm really upset at how I didn't feel able to advocate for myself and felt so worried about making a fuss. I want to start trying for my second but feel so much more anxious after the first experience (and even more so as my second will now be higher risk) and so worried that I'll put my subsequent baby at harm by being so worried about being seen as difficult. I'm even more worried after all the findings coming out at the moment about certain maternity units and maternity safety.
Can I ask if anyone else felt like this and what helped?

Adding images to Shopify metafields involves creating a metafield definition and then populating that metafield with the desired image URLs.
Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:
Step 1: Create a Metafield Definition

1. Navigate to Settings > Metafields.
2. Select the part of your store where you want to add the metafield (e.g., Products, Variants, Collections, etc.).
3. Click on 'Add definition.'
4. Fill out the necessary information:
   • Name: Enter a name for your metafield (e.g., "Custom Image").
   • Namespace and key: Use a namespace and key that makes sense for your store (e.g., "custom_fields.image").
   • Type: Select "File" and then "Image" from the type dropdown menu.
5. Save

Step 2: Add an Image to the Metafield

1. Go to the part of your store where you created the metafield definition (e.g., a specific product page).
2. Scroll down to the Metafields section.
3. Find your newly created metafield.
4. Click on the 'Select file' button or drag and drop the image you want to use.
5. Save the changes on the product or page.

Step 3: Display the Metafield Image in Your Theme

To display the metafield image on your storefront, you'll need to edit your theme's code:

1. Navigate to Online Store > Themes.
2. Find the theme you are using and click 'Actions' > 'Edit code'.
3. Locate the appropriate template file (e.g., product.liquid for product pages).
4. Add the following Liquid code to display the metafield image:

​

{% if product.metafields.custom_fields.image %}  {% endif %} 

Replace custom_fields and image with the namespace and key you used.

Example Scenario

Let's say you created a metafield for products to add a custom promotional image. Here's how you'd implement it:

1. Create the metafield definition with the namespace custom_fields and key promo_image.
2. Add an image to the metafield for a specific product.
3. Edit the product.liquid file to include the following code where you want the image to appear:

​

{% if product.metafields.custom_fields.promo_image %}  {% endif %} 

This code checks if the metafield exists and then displays the image using Shopify's img_url filter to generate the appropriate image URL.
By following these steps, you should be able to add and display images using Shopify metafields effectively. If you encounter any specific issues or have further questions, feel free to ask!