(Part 4) Top products from r/MurderedByWords

https://www.amazon.com/When-Hes-Married-Mom-Mother-Enmeshed/dp/0743291387/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/When-Hes-Married-Mom-Mother-Enmeshed/dp/0743291387

"When a Woman Is in an Emotional Tug-of-War for Her Man's Heart Why can't he commit? Many women find themselves asking this question when in love with a man who won't get married, won't stop womanizing, or refuses to give up his sex addictions. Often this kind of man is bound by an unhealthy attachment to his mother. This phenomenon is called "mother-son enmeshment" In When He's Married to Mom, clinical psychologist and renowned intimacy expert Dr. Kenneth M. Adams goes beyond the stereotypes of momma's boys and meddling mothers to explain how mother-son enmeshment affects everyone: the mother, the son, and the woman who loves him. In his twenty-five years of practice, Dr. Adams has successfully treated hundreds of enmeshed men and shares their stories in this informative guide. He provides proven methods to make things better, including: - Guidelines to help women create fulfilling relationships with mother-enmeshed men - Tools to help mother-enmeshed men have healthy and successful dating experiences leading to serious relationships and marriage - Strategies to help parents avoid enmeshing their children When He's Married to Mom provides practical and compassionate advice to the women who are involved with mother-enmeshed men, to the mothers who wish to set them free, and to the men themselves."

Good news! Just called Webster and they said it doesn’t matter what you think sounds right and doesn’t sound right. There’re gonna keep the dictionary as is! Turns out they think it would be pretty irresponsible to let someone that doesn’t fully understand the English language be in charge of something like that. They recommended you learn an easier language, like Chinese. Until then, maybe find a job that isn’t correcting people’s word usage online. You aren’t very good at it. Good luck friend :)

Josh McDowell's book "More Than a Carpenter" documents all the archeological evidence he found when he researched in Europe. Chapter 10 is dedicated to proving that the Resurrection happened, although I recommend reading all the other chapters before it, otherwise some things in Chapter 10 won't make sense.

You can get a used copy of that book for as little as five bucks on amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1414326270/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=

To wet your appetite, here's the prologue of that book in PDF format: https://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/firstChapters/978-1-4143-2627-6.pdf

Pages 15-17 state in pertinent part...

> I knew that if I could uncover indisputable evidence that the Bible is an unreliable record, the whole of Christianity would crumble... I spent months in research. I even dropped out of school for a time to study in the historically rich libraries of Europe. And I found evidence. Evidence in abundance. Evidence I would not have believed had I not seen it with my own eyes. Finally I could come to only one conclusion: If I were to remain intellectually honest, I had to admit that the Old and New Testament documents were some of the most reliable writings in all of antiquity... I want to share with you the core of what I learned in my months of research so that you, too, may see that Christianity is not a myth, not the fantasy of wishful dreamers, not a hoax played on the simpleminded. It is rock-solid truth.

I'm not sure where you got that. According to Harold Holzer (who literally wrote a book on the speech we're talking about):

A synopsis of the book by the Chicago Tribune:

>Finally, he rallied Republicans with a call to be true conservatives by holding firm to what he saw as the anti-slavery heritage of the American republic and standing strong against Southerners who were trying to expand human bondage. " 'Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it,' " he admonished Republicans.

Here's the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Cooper-Union-President-Schuster/dp/0743299647

As I understand the speech, Lincoln was seen as a radical. This speech was written to establish himself and his party as conservative, to demonstrate such so that he could be elected.

Now, I think what's confusing the issue is that the act was progressive, right? No doubt slavery was an established part of US culture at the time of the speech. But the TONE of the speech is conservative, and Lincoln is making a very good argument that the increase in slavery in the US was in fact the "progressive" movement, and that going back to the original intention of the country was the truly conservative path.

Now, you can cry foul and say that Lincoln overstepped, but there are some problems:

1. you're disagreeing with Lincoln, and he was a pretty damn smart dude
   
2. he was re-elected, so apparently his message rang true for people of the time, it's hard to say what connections they had to the constitution since some states were rebuking it at the time.
   
   even if you are ok with those points, Lincoln pulling one over by claiming to be conservative while making progressive moves, it doesn't change the fact that the republican party was a conservative party, led by a conservative identifying person.

yeah, he had numerous collections of reviews, i would read page after page, not focusing on a particular movie. I worked at a video store so had lots of time to read
these are two that i remember:

home companion

https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Eberts-Book-Film-Tarantino/dp/0393040003/ref=sr_1_90?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1537107121&sr=1-90&refinements=p_27%3ARoger+Ebert


he also turned me on to Pauline Kael.

Also i remember once he lost his voice, he started writing about more than films on his blog. I didnt read much i just remember that he had some really good essays that were not about films and i liked pretty much every point he had made (cant remember what they were about now)

> Sorry, I depend on science and facts

You should read The magical thinking of guys who love logic. "Science" is not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

There is no existing "science" which will accurately predict what the 327 million people of the United States are going to do politically and socially over the next few years, so if your standard for taking action is to wait for the science, you're going to sit around like a useless lump while the United States travels a very dark path.

> Especially when the op actually claims science supports such statements with at least one model and analysis.

That's not what they claimed. They described a "consensus among scholars and survivors." There are plenty of scholars who are not scientists, as you'll see below. What op is referring to is presumably the many warnings that have indeed been raised by scholars and survivors, of which the OP post is one. I'll list just a few of the more prominent ones, but if you search, you'll find many more.

• Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale, in his book The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America
  
• Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, How Fascism Works
  
• Cass R. Sunstein, professor at Harvard Law School and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy, who is "by far the most cited law professor in the United States," in his book Can It Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America
  
• Madeline Albright, previously Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of State, in her book Fascism: A Warning
  
• Holocaust survivor Stephen B. Jacobs: https://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965. There are many more warnings from survivors also, if you look for them.
  
  I'll also point out that it takes effort to produce such a list, so if you take the fact that people you're arguing with just don't bother, perhaps because they perceive you as not worth the effort, you're going to find yourself wallowing in ignorance while at the same time thinking you know it all. Which is precisely the problem that gets us into situations like the current one. If you want to be part of the solution, you have to take responsibility for educating yourself better.

Wow. there's a lot to unpack there. Lots of anger. You know what'd be awesome? Links. As is your post looks like a psycho rant on a post that's been posted 3 times.

This is how you do it:
People call Trump Hitler (your words, not mine, I'd just call him Fascist). Because he marginalizes free press. He also lies a lot and calls himself a nationalist. There's also articles and books written on this (and even updated!).

While it's certainly a smear (Trump is just almost a fascist). It still holds a lot more validity than this rant.

About CPTSD in general? This book by Pete Walker is a pretty seminal work.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1492871842/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_ZHsPCbTPKG205_nodl

This other one also helped me a lot, because the physiological crap that comes along with CPTSD is every bit as terrible as the emotional component:

https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=URYXV0O6HWS6&keywords=the+body+keeps+the+score&qid=1554327719&s=gateway&sprefix=the+bidy&sr=8-1

Ultimately though, therapy and journaling are going to be your best starting points for your personal recovery. If you can find a therapist that has experience with trauma, that’s your best bet. I would also recommend seeing a general practitioner and a psychiatrist because of the aforementioned physical issues.

I got 3 tables:

1. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country
   
   
2. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - this is what sane people care about, not that it's gun homicide.
   
   
3. List of countries by average IQ
   
   There were some gaps, and this isn't meant to be exhaustive, and I didn't check the methodology of the source data: Wikipedia is "good enough" for a Reddit comment.
   
   I put it in a spreadsheet and ran a correlation on guns to intentional homicide rate and got a correlation of -0.04359 (or -0.04283 if you chop out gaps).
   
   Civilian gun ownership correlates slightly negatively with intentional homicide rate. Basically no correlation. This could be because the US is more violent than a lot of other countries and DGUs negate that, it could be that guns don’t matter, it could be a coincidence. If anyone tells you that civilian gun ownership raises the intentional homicide rate, they’re lying or uninformed.
   
   Average IQ (which is a proxy for g) correlates moderately negatively with the intentional homicide rate, at -0.35236. That is, the higher the average IQ of a nation, the less intentional homicide there is.
   
   This makes sense to me because, the more intelligent people are, the more opportunities they create for one another and the more likely people are to be able to come to some agreement without homicide. It could also be due to wealth which could be influenced by high IQ or low wealth could be depressing IQ. Probably both.
   
   I suspect this is a better debate to be having, but it gets into hatefact territory. I'd like to see a correlation between social trust/cohesion or time preference and intentional homicide rate, but these are too hard to gather in a short amount of time if they exist at all. IQ is the psychometric with the strongest genetic correlation and has been exhaustively studied. The big 5 personality traits are somewhat looser and still subject to a moderate amount of debate.

They CAN be backed up, and there are several hundreds of books doing just that. My personal favorite is God According to God. So, they can be, don't you worry about that.

I'm ot OP but

https://www.amazon.com/Bitch-Are-You-Retarded-Difference/dp/1468557084/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=BItch%2C+are+you+retarded%3F&qid=1564701355&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Will definitely be ordering a copy.

"Destabilize" kind of implies doing things subtly tho.

When was the last time we even practiced that? It's been pretty direct since the Banana Republic days. We've six years to fix it, or else expect another 150 years of revolving door dictators in SA and the ME

[This was a good read] (https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153)

This book is a fun read.




The author keeps a running kill count, it's great.

Check this recipe out

Credit to Zach Golden and his book

Sure you are.

Go buy a fucking book.

https://www.amazon.com/Unspirational-2019-Day-Day-Calendar/dp/144949465X/ref=nodl_

That amazon link is for the 2019 calendar, but on the same page you’ll see the link for the 2020 version. (I dunno - maybe you don’t want to wait six months to open a new calendar)

You do realize here, you cited a book. A book can be written by anyone. Just because it is a book does not mean it has true information in it.

Take for example Vaccines are Dangerous by Curtis Cost. It was published, but that does not mean what it says is true.

I’m not here to start a fight, just to point out a logical fallacy here and to ask for a bit more proof.

Is it just that you don't want to google it yourself because you're afraid of realizing that more than one person actually believes this shit?

https://www.amazon.ca/Mommy-Wars-Stay-at-Home-Choices-Families/dp/0812974484

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/family-friendly/201204/will-there-ever-be-truce-in-the-mommy-wars?collection=101067

https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/sahmstay-at-home-mom-it-also-means-sick-of-asking-husband-for-money--03a10/

https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/sahms-say-they-have-a-hard-job-try-doing-it-in-half-the-time-plus-getting-dressed-and-brushing-your-teeth-and-hair-is-required-daily-d87b9/

They didn't spit on soldiers. That was an urban legend that war-hawks started repeating in the late 70's to push back against a public narrative which had developed as a result of widespread media coverage that the war was a morally bankrupt quagmire. Since then their entire generation has been reliving that movie in the first person. Zero printed reports of spitting occurring at the time exist, and very few printed reports claiming that it occurred exist after the war but before the premiere of that movie. You will surprisingly often hear quotes from the movie repeated verbatim, even by people who were actually deployed.

It was drummed up in the 2004 Presidential campaign to smear John Kerry, a war hero with regrets about our actions in Vietnam, by the campaign of George W Bush.