DNA kits companies sell fibs.
But, Marks points out, these companies are preying on the public because they simply don’t have enough comparative information to pinpoint a gene on a world map. They might match your DNA to some group on some continent, but what they don’t tell you is that you would probably also match the group next door if only they had some of those samples as well.
If, for example, a company’s DNA kit tells you that you’re 23% British, it might be because your ancestors are Pakistani, and so are a significant number of their DNA samples from Britain.
Dating is a form of courtship. Courtship is the courter’s act of seeking the intent to marry from the courted. Therefore any dating which is not directed towards marriage is fraud, at best. Therefore any dating before an appropriate age to marry (whatever age that is) is fraud, at best.
So, what I want to know is: How many of those who say women should graduate college before they marry, or say women should reach the perfect mean age of marriage before they marry, forbid dating before that moment?
This weekend I decide to make an effort to increase my posts. Conveniently, I became ill on Sunday and unable to work this week. Hooray for malignant bacteria!
Then, Monday morning, my laptop power supply burned up. Sonuva…
Until the new adapter is here tomorrow (and post by phone is not my only tedious option), here is a hilarious spoof of contemporary “Jesus is my boyfriend” so-called praise music.
Here’s the same guy just being hilarious.
Repurposed from my comment under Dalrock’s post “Cross Dressing Snuck Up in Our Blind Spot”.
The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”
These comments about women’s pants in Asia, or Roman men’s robes, are totally wrongheaded. Whether legs are wrapped versus draped, and which for whom, is a subjective decision of a society. However, subjective does not mean irrelevant, or unimportant. It means we should use our freedom to orient towards the good, the true, and the beautiful. That orientation is more important than whether or not we can suss out the Natural Law of Pants and Robes. The search for the science of pants is a silly distraction used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. They are like so-called environmentalists who uproot gardens so that weeds may flourish “naturally”.
The importance of holding subjective standards and symbols which (while themselves not objective truths) do point to objective truths and reality needs to be considered much more thoroughly than it is; even by men who think themselves as “seeing”, “woke” or “Red-Pilled”…including myself.
 Probably the natural law of human clothing is, “Be sinless and naked”.