You develop introspection by meditating.

Hence the whole development of it.

Nah, he wanted to make things less of a workload by expanding committees with people he trusts. Apparently it got vetoed by the use of some proxy or other legalese.

He thinks that was unethical, as the people who vetoed didn't even (according to him) know what was going on.

I'd link buuut no link.

So google ajahn brahm resignation

it's a very short letter.

brb

I was.

>Got home
>Not tired at all

sigh

EVERY TIME

<:ree:480188470942498827>

Sure.

Today was "I'm falling asleep on my feet"
>Get home
>.... FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF <:ree:480188470942498827>

Hard drive.

I can't exactly upload them.

I got them legit from all the fuckers I bilk who have subscriptions to Nature et al.

:V And nobody say otherwise.

Very often authors upload their own papers on their own website, if they have one.

Usually googling a title will also list a PDF from a university portal, or even a public available full version elsewhere.

If _everything_ fails there are other means. Either use a university or public library (which can get the study from the university on loan per request) or various pirate platforms.

I use all available legal means.

Also, when googling, use search flags and options properly.

"This in quotes" searches EXACTLY what is in quotes.

filetype:X where X is the type (filetype:pdf) will only return that file type.

Look up google's search settings or flags or such.

Your first attempt should be an exact search of the title.

If you do not have the title, try the author and year with general keywords about the topic summarized.

Often newspapers and others will intentionally NOT cite the source directly.

The fuckers.

I say intentionally because I HAVE NOT YET SEEN A SINGLE JOURNALIST NOT LIE ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF A STUDY

_EVER!_

_NOT ONCE EVER_

<:ree:480188470942498827>

If a journalist ever wants to interview me I have only one answer.

"Go fuck yourself"

An honest journalist is like an honest prosecutor. They play cards with Jesus and Santa on Thanksgiving.

see ya

Disturb's cover is one of the worst covers I've ever heard.

Fiteme <:ree:480188470942498827>

It misses the point, all the points and all possible points, and radically alters the song to unrecognizability in a manner that renders the lyrics useless.

Ramping up to pointless screaming (comparatively so) doesn't deliver the message, it does the _opposite_.

_The song was presented monotonously for a reason_

You're allowed to have a wrong opinion.

;p

I'm just being a shit.

Though I honestly don't like Disturbed's cover.

Uh, no.

If you're going to claim that you reaaaaaaaaally don't know Simon and Garfunkel.

And so did mine, and my grandmother.

Yes, they did typically sing in a basic harmonic style, but it's not monotonous as this song is on average.

Yes.

I am.

No and that's a really stupid idea most famous for how stupid it is.

:P

I meant I am that wojak @The-Free-Monk mentions

I look away for five minutes

What's going on?

what

Raaaace isn't akin to breeds either no.

But that's irrelevant to the first point.

Xychotic, relating to "race prefer their own kind", this is actually not true. To be clear, not _necessarily_ true by any means we've devised to determine "preference". For example, cross-cultural validations of attractiveness find no variance in what races find attractive. But there are variances in what they _will admit_ is attractive (hence you have to be careful in how you go about studying this to avoid that racism bias).

To be absolutely clear, if and only if the person in question is highly tribalistic with a strong ingroup preference, then they prefer members they perceive of as their own group.

And, to be absolutely clear, that _isn't_ a majority in most societies or groups.

Highly tribalistic highly ingroup-driven people are almost always a minority.

Furthermore, this preference _is not_ based on race most of the time, but rather perceived group affiliation of which race may only play a small or incidental part.

As in the case of highly tribalistic left-wing blacks who call right-wing blacks "uncle tom" or "race traitor" in spite of sharing the group "black".

@Lilu Using a condom during masturbation as well as a silicone masturbator can help.

Sex researchers deal with sexual dysfunctions like low stimuli on the regular.

The general treatment for sexual anhedonia is a slow acclimation toward less sensation while still achieving orgasm.

Ideally, to be able to achieve low stimulation orgasm without porn.

That usually helps sexual functioning for people with sexual anhedonia or delayed orgasm.

Delayed orgasm is a considerable problem for some - far moreso than "premature" ejaculation in many cases.

"nofap" is not healthy. Ask any doctor, a lack of ejaculation considerably increases risk of prostate problems. Not just cancer.

Or, rather, I'd say _not ejaculating_ isn't healthy.

Those are not sufficiently frequent.

If you're in a relationship with access to regular sex, not masturbating can help if you experience delayed ejaculation.

"optimal" depends on the person.

In terms of maximally reducing prostate, urethral infection, etc, a few times a week or so.

Note I did not mention only prostate cancer, but prostatitis, urethral infections, etc.

Also his concept there is hilariously misleading.

"Prostate cancer has an extremely low mortality"? Um, no. Depends on all the factors. What age you get it at, whether it's caught early, whether you get regular screenings, etc.

Your quote just lied by misusing all of his data to get the lowest possible number.

As the saying goes: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The same obsession with fad diets and fad exercises and fad everything else.

A perceived lack of masculinity feeding paranoia and a desire to reassert what is perceived to be lost.

When for most people all they need do is lose weight and exercise.

Case in point: For men where prostate cancer has mestasticized (spread to other parts of the body), survival rate is 30% or less.

Note how he tries to calculate _mortality_ of prostate cancer

not _increased risk of getting it_

Well if you risk _increases_ and you're not getting checked, and it metastasizes, you're boned.

It damn well should be.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer behind _skin cancer_ for men.

It is VERY common.

Risk factors include low sexual activity, obesity, smoking, alcoholism, etc.

But this is not just about prostate cancer. It's about UTI's, infections, other complications.

Regular ejaculation is simply optimal for maintaining the health of your sexual organs however it is obtained.

They serve the exact same biological purpose, Lilu.

Yes, Lilu.