SoCal1990

Still hanging around, hoping for a glance from someone who’s made it clear they’re done with you? It’s almost impressive, how even being ignored doesn’t stop your obsession. Must sting to be this fixated on someone who couldn’t care less.

Funny, coming from someone who spends hours scrutinizing others’ relationships and motivations online. For someone so focused on ‘immature old men,’ you seem endlessly drawn to their company—care to explain the fascination?

Strange, isn’t it? For someone who supposedly despises ‘old sex tourists,’ you seem to spend a remarkable amount of time here, engaging with them and dissecting their every move. If you’re really above it all, why the need to keep returning, hour after hour, to this same ‘disgusting’ pool? Almost feels like you’re part of the club you claim to look down on.

It’s telling that you admit to firing off quick replies while “multitasking,” yet claim to now give this conversation its due “moment.” Somehow, despite these alleged bursts of spontaneity, your every reply is drenched in the same dismissive, superior tone—strange consistency for someone supposedly just “play-fighting” without thought. Your claim to being “only human” and calling this a lighthearted fray would be more convincing if you ever stepped beyond shallow jabs and face-saving laughs. That rigid persona, always “above” others while somehow “engaging” in every petty dig, doesn’t exactly read as casual or fluid; it reads like a script you’ve rehearsed so many times that it’s almost involuntary. But sure, let’s keep pretending this is all just good-natured banter and not some compulsive need to assert yourself, even as you dodge any depth or honesty. After all, we wouldn’t want to challenge that fragile superiority you cling to so earnestly, would we?

Ah, you’ve shown up so quickly again—quite the predictable “smaller, varied” routine you’ve got there. If “not interested” means showing up to announce how little you care, it’s a curious way to prove it. Maybe for once, you could actually bring something substantial to the conversation rather than just a quick exit. Seems odd for someone who values their time to spend so much of it reminding others of their “disinterest.” If the point is lost on you, don’t worry—I’m sure the others here will find it amusing enough to make up for it.

It’s interesting to see you put so much effort into dodging substantive conversation while still finding the time to reply. You insist on skimming past anything that doesn’t fit your quick-take approach, as if a topic about “frustration over 50” somehow restricts dialogue to trivial sound bites. Yet here you are, fully engaged in a thread that you’ve claimed holds little interest for you. Perhaps that suggests more curiosity than you’re willing to admit? You’ve used a few choice comparisons—comparing me to a “smelly old man,” calling engagement here a waste of time—yet those dismissals seem to mask a reluctance to actually consider the points raised. If this conversation were really beneath you, it’s odd that you’re putting in this much effort to excuse yourself from it. What’s curious is that this entire discussion does reflect frustration, though not the kind you might expect. Frustration, it seems, isn’t about age or even others’ opinions—it’s about the inability to handle real conversation when it’s directed your way. If you’re genuinely here for meaningful dialogue, maybe the path forward is to engage beyond surface-level reactions. After all, even “old-school mongers” might appreciate a bit of depth every now and then. So, if you’re still here, consider this an invitation to actually address the points on the table. Otherwise, we can simply agree that real engagement isn’t your thing, which is fine too. Let’s see if this exchange sparks any genuine interest for you.

It’s revealing that you dismiss a genuine response as “word salad” and a “wall of text” rather than addressing any point with depth. You speak of “finite time,” yet seem to spend yours on brief, dismissive replies while sidestepping any real engagement. One might wonder if the real issue isn’t actually time, but rather a reluctance to consider perspectives that disrupt quick, comfortable judgments. Real dialogue, after all, requires a bit more than cursory remarks. You often imply you’re above these discussions, but your continual deflection suggests otherwise. If the critique truly didn’t matter, would you keep responding? Perhaps there’s something worth unpacking here, should you decide to engage a little more earnestly. I’ll look forward to your thoughts.

Thank you for your reply. It’s amusing that you advise on the art of conversation while resorting to a response that largely ignores the complexities of the points raised. Your focus on conciseness is noted, yet it appears you’ve overlooked the depth of discussion that meaningful exchanges often require. Dismissing a “wall of text” without engaging with its content suggests a reluctance to grapple with ideas that challenge your assertions—and perhaps even reflects your own laziness in engaging with complex thoughts. It seems that your preference for brevity is more about your inability to keep up with a nuanced argument than any real understanding of effective communication, revealing you as a lazy thinker. You claim that you don’t remember what I wrote, which could imply either a selective memory or a disinterest in engaging with substance. However, the topics at hand—moral judgments about relationships, the nature of consent, and the dynamics of social engagement—are not trivial matters that can be simply bypassed. In fact, your attempts to reduce the complexity of such interactions to a mere assertion of public sentiment speaks more to your avoidance than to any clear argument. Perhaps you’re more interested in performing for an imaginary audience than in addressing the ideas presented, which makes you seem even more pretentious. Your analogy about observing a “thirsty old man” with a younger companion is interesting, yet it reveals a tendency to project your own subjective views onto others rather than considering the nuances of their situations. You mention that such a man would not publicly discuss his personal life, which raises the question: why do you feel justified in casting judgment on others’ choices? Is it not possible that your views reflect your own biases rather than a collective consensus? Moreover, by labeling their interactions as “disgusting,” you risk oversimplifying the dynamics at play—both in terms of relationships and the reasons individuals seek companionship. It’s almost as if you’re desperate to assert moral superiority, but it only serves to expose your own weak shortcomings. Your approach suggests that you equate vocalizing disdain with moral clarity, but it’s worth considering whether this perspective might itself be a reflection of insecurity. What drives someone to comment on the lives of others so vehemently? If your perspective is truly representative of societal views, what does that say about the diversity of thought and experience that exists beyond your own? Real engagement with a topic requires a willingness to explore its complexities rather than relying on generalized assumptions. It’s clear that your ability to grasp these complexities is severely limited, making you appear like a superficial simpleton relying on shallow criticisms instead. You also seem to suggest that if someone cannot “stand the heat,” they should avoid particular discussions. However, isn’t it crucial to challenge our discomfort and explore it rather than shy away from it? Conversations around morality and relationships often elicit strong emotions, yet they are also opportunities for growth and understanding. To label those discussions as beneath you may protect your own unjustified sense of superiority but does little to advance the conversation. In your concluding remarks, you imply that the burden of discomfort lies with those you criticize. Yet, perhaps the more enlightening perspective would be to consider how your own judgments reflect your inner landscape. Why do you feel compelled to speak out against the choices of others? Engaging in such critique can be a pathway to deeper self-reflection—something that may ultimately lead to more meaningful conversations and insights. The real question is whether you’re capable of that kind of introspection or if you’re just a coward too busy patting yourself on the back for your perceived moral high ground. In essence, your dismissal of longer responses might not stem from a genuine preference for brevity but rather a reluctance to invest the effort needed to engage with thoughtful discourse. If you truly seek to advance conversation rather than deflect from it, consider taking the time to address the substance of what’s being said rather than retreating into a superficial critique of style. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, provided you can move beyond surface-level critique into a more genuine exploration of these ideas. After all, meaningful discourse often lies in the willingness to engage with what makes us uncomfortable rather than dismissing it outright.

Thank you for your response. It’s interesting, though, that instead of addressing the points I raised, you’ve chosen to sidestep with a few smiles and generalities rather than engage directly. This approach actually serves to reinforce some of the questions I asked about your motivations, as it suggests you may be avoiding self-reflection. If your life, as you describe, is genuinely as enriched and privileged as you suggest, it’s still unclear why you invest so much energy in critiquing people you view as “old” or “delusional.” The fact that you deflect any self-explanation by focusing on these other men only adds to the impression that you’re avoiding something within yourself. It’s also hard not to notice how often you ride a moral high horse when it comes to relationships, suggesting that those who engage in casual encounters or pay for companionship are somehow missing out on the beauty of real connection. You paint them as shallow, as though their relationships—or lack of them—lack value or meaning. But from what I’ve seen, many of these men are fully aware of their choices. Some have had meaningful relationships in the past and are now only looking for physical connection or companionship, without the deeper commitment that you claim is essential. It’s curious that you seem to dismiss these choices as inherently inferior. Not everyone seeks the same kind of connection, and assuming that your perspective is the only valid one seems rather narrow for someone who positions himself as worldly and insightful. Furthermore, your apparent condemnation of these men as exploiters or shallow pleasure-seekers seems rather one-sided. They’re simply engaging in mutually consensual exchanges with women who are also choosing to participate. It seems rather presumptive to assume harm in such arrangements when both parties are clear on the terms, and neither seems victimized. After all, these women are adults making their own decisions about how they earn a living, and assuming that they’re necessarily “misfortunate” or harmed by these interactions verges on condescension itself. Not every exchange of companionship is automatically devoid of respect or value, and it’s a stretch to judge these men—or the women involved—as lacking integrity based solely on choices that don’t align with your view of what relationships should be. Given the nature of your interactions here, it’s hard not to wonder if you’re projecting behaviors onto others that are quite similar to your own. In various posts, you criticize others as being “sex tourists” or “obsessed” with subjects you deem beneath you. Yet by your own frequent engagement on these same topics, it seems possible that you may share a similar focus—perhaps even similar insecurities. If these topics are truly as distasteful and irrelevant to you as you claim, then it’s rather strange that you’re compelled to involve yourself in such endless “pissing matches.” I’m genuinely curious: does it give you some sense of control or superiority to dismiss these men and their choices while positioning yourself as distinct? When you suggest that I’m attempting to “fill gaps with imagination,” it reads more as a convenient dodge than an actual response. If you believe the conclusions I’ve drawn are inaccurate, wouldn’t a more straightforward approach be to clarify why you’re here and why these discussions engage you so persistently? By dismissing the points as mere “imagination,” you’re only reinforcing the idea that your role in these exchanges may not be as different from those you judge as you’d like to believe. You also describe yourself as somehow “beyond understanding,” as though you’re a complex enigma. But this “mystery” seems mostly an illusion, one you appear to cultivate by offering ambiguous responses rather than transparent reasoning. This only deepens the question: why do you invest so much energy in a forum you claim holds little appeal for you? If these men and their choices are indeed beneath you, what compels you to keep returning to critique them? This kind of behavior, as you surely know, often suggests some inner conflict, or perhaps a need to elevate oneself by comparison. There’s also a distinct irony in your judgment of others for seeking out simple companionship or straightforward exchanges, particularly when you often claim a moral high ground. Isn’t it more intellectually honest to recognize that different people seek different things from relationships—and that none of these choices, when consensual, inherently lacks value? Real insight would acknowledge that not everyone shares your outlook, and that what seems shallow to you may hold meaning for others. You seem reluctant to consider that others may be more self-aware than you give them credit for; many know exactly what they’re looking for and are at peace with it. Your insistence on labeling their choices as misguided suggests that perhaps you’re not as open-minded or empathetic as you seem to believe. Whatever the case, your pattern of engagement doesn’t seem to be bringing you the kind of respect or admiration you might hope for. Instead, it comes across as though you’re far more absorbed in the lives of people you look down on than you would like to admit. If you’re genuinely here to share wisdom or a different perspective, perhaps reconsidering your approach could yield a better result. Otherwise, your attempts to cast yourself as a figure “above” the fray only seem to blur the lines between you and those you’re criticizing. If there’s one thing that seems consistently missing from your comments, it’s empathy. Your tendency to label others’ choices as misguided without taking time to truly understand their backgrounds or intentions suggests a lack of openness to perspectives other than your own. Real insight would mean acknowledging that different people may have valid reasons for making different choices, without automatically assuming these choices are “wrong” or “beneath” you. And perhaps this is something worth considering: genuine growth and understanding often require more empathy than judgment, and a willingness to respect—even if not agree with—the diverse paths others have chosen. So, I’d encourage you to pause and consider why these exchanges hold your attention so strongly. If your circumstances are indeed different from those you criticize, then why remain here? If you don’t find any value in these discussions or the people in them, then what are you gaining? And if you’re here to “enlighten” others, perhaps a less dismissive approach would be more effective. In the end, the very fact that you feel the need to disparage others’ choices suggests an insecurity in your own. Real self-assurance doesn’t need to prop itself up by putting others down or casting judgment on mutually consensual relationships that bring others comfort or satisfaction. After all, each person’s path is uniquely their own. Maybe your energy would be better spent questioning why you hold such a persistent need to “correct” others—many of whom seem to have reached a far more honest level of self-acceptance than you’re willing to grant.

I’ve read through a number of your exchanges with other members, and most of them are never-ending pissing matches that go nowhere, particularly on topics related to women and the sexual activity of older men in Thailand—subjects that seem to dominate your interest and focus. It also strikes me that you post about these topics so frequently, despite giving the impression of being younger than others and having a well-educated wife from a good background—a partner you describe as financially independent, with whom you share a great sex life, a stimulating relationship, and a supportive social circle of friends. So, it seems you have little in common with these people, yet you are inclined to communicate with them for hours on end? It doesn’t make much (if any) logical sense. Given all that, you seem to view yourself as on a different level than others here, frequently trying to belittle them. But what are you getting out of it? Based on your own descriptions, your life sounds much more privileged and very different from the lives of many others here. So why spend so much time focused on people and things you consider beneath you—topics that supposedly don’t relate to you and differ significantly from your own standards? Honestly, I can’t figure it out, nor does it add up, especially when those you’re “schooling” don’t seem to at all appreciate your opinions or your condescending advice. So why do you do it? Do you enjoy provoking them and then enduring the backlash? I wouldn’t be surprised. There are men who are known to get off on triggering and then being abused by others. From what I’ve read, you often come across as passive-aggressive, conflicted, and frequently flip-flopping on issues just to try and gain the upper hand or appear superior to others. The only conclusion I can draw is that perhaps you find some satisfaction in watching others struggle—it may fill some unmet need in your own life. It brings to mind Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club, who attends various self-help groups under false pretenses, just to watch others suffer and to feed off their pain, only to reassure himself that he’s in a better situation than they are, despite all the hidden pain and suffering in his own life. Or maybe it’s the opposite—perhaps you’re like everyone else you put down but are hiding it, even from yourself, by pretending you’re different and above it all, somehow special. Whatever the case, this approach doesn’t seem to be working well for you. It comes across as though you’re obsessed with other people’s difficult lives, not to help them, but to push them down further. As a result, nobody seems to appreciate your opinions, nor are you gaining any admiration or acceptance from others as the guru you appear to be striving to become. Ironically, many of the people you criticize seem more balanced, self-aware, and honest with themselves than you are. Perhaps you’d benefit from reconsidering your own situation. Hijacking nearly every discussion about sex, men, and women in Thailand—topics that, by your account, don’t apply to you in any way—only makes your behavior seem strange, suspicious, and contradictory, and certainly questionable in many ways. If your life and your relationships are truly everything on a higher level, as you say they are, then what are you doing here scraping at the sh*t like everyone else?

That depends if there was a break within the Ashkenazism bloodline or not. Thus, a DNA test might show you are a minority percentage of Northern European, if there was perhaps ever any infidelity going on. It's seems pretty unlikely, but still possible. If it did occur though then it probably would have been within the last 3-4 generations. Least likely 15-20 generations back because they lived more as an isolated tribe back then. You can try https://www.23andme.com/

You might find this interesting: The ancestors of Ashkenazi Jewish people migrated from Western Asia into Southern Europe around 2,000 years ago. Then — in the Middle Ages — many Jewish people living in southern Europe moved north, primarily to northeastern France and western Germany near the Rhine River. It was there that a distinct religious, cultural, and genetic Jewish identity formed, and the people came to be called “Ashkenazi” after Ashkenaz, a descendant of Noah in the Hebrew bible. While the geographic origins of the Ashkenazi Jewish population lie in Central and Eastern Europe, the DNA of Ashkenazi Jewish people is more similar to historical Southern European and Western Asian populations, reflecting early stages of the Jewish diaspora. However, there is evidence of limited Central and Eastern European ancestry introduced more recently into the Ashkenazi gene pool. Written in the DNA of Ashkenazi Jewish people is evidence of a significant population bottleneck in Europe over 600 years ago, followed by a rapid population expansion. A “bottleneck” occurs whenever there is a decrease in the size of a population (in this case, a result of persecution and expulsion), and some researchers estimate that most Ashkenazi Jewish people descend from a few hundred (only 300 perhaps) “founding” individuals who lived in Central Europe around 30 generations ago. Although not made-up from a country or region, the Ashkenazi Jews are given their own reference population group in the field of DNA testing and Ancestry Composition because Ashkenazi Jews are so genetically distinct.

Sephardic Jews make up over 50% of the Jewish population in Israel. The Ashkenazi Jews are only about 30%. And then the rest is a mix. The Jewish group that is known to have a higher IQ are the Ashkenazi Jews and they are not the dominant race in Israel.

Following below are some points from the links provided above. Also, all of this is referring to Ashkenazi Jews, also often referred to as European Jews, many of whom emigrated from Northern Europe (Germany, Poland, Russia) to either the USA, the UK or Israel either just before or during WW2. There are also the Sephardic Jews, many of whom were born in Palestine, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and some of the other surrounding middle eastern countries. Ethnically, Sephardic Jews look more middle eastern than the Ashkenazi Jews and don't necessarily share the same genetically inherent higher intelligence traits. --- Studies have generally found Ashkenazi Jews to have an average IQ in the range of 107 to 115, and Ashkenazi Jews as a group have had successes in intellectual fields out of proportion to their numbers. Today's Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average mathematical and verbal IQ and an unusual cognitive profile compared to other ethnic groups. From roughly 800 to 1650 CE, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were a mostly isolated genetic group. When Ashkenazi Jews married non-Jews, they usually left the Jewish community; few non-Jews married into the Jewish community. During the same period, laws barred Ashkenazi Jews from most jobs, including farming and crafts, and forced them into finance, management, and international trade. Wealthy Jews had several more children per family than poor Jews. So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored; genes for irrelevant traits, such as spatio-visual abilities, were supported by less selective pressure than in the general population. Given the high heritability of IQ, 800 years is plenty of time for the selective pressure on verbal and mathematical intelligence to produce a 16-point increase in IQ.

Not sure why this topic is posted in the political soapbox. Anyway, if anyone is really interested in the science and studies behind this topic, you can read the following links: https://alchetron.com/Ashkenazi-Jewish-intelligence https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/29250 https://infogalactic.com/info/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Imagine for a moment that the critics of Donald Trump are correct. As we know, many Americans who oppose Trump fear the damage he could inflict on the country if he were to return to power. These concerns often revolve around potential harm to democratic institutions, civil liberties, or global stability. On the other hand, Trump supporters seem to dismiss these warnings entirely, confident that none of the dire predictions will come to pass. But let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: What if Trump is re-elected and does, in fact, carry out the very actions his critics have been warning about? What if the damage predicted becomes a reality? And what if Trump doesn’t serve his full term due to issues related to age, cognitive decline, or other health concerns, leaving someone like J.D. Vance as president for the remainder of the term? At that point, I wonder how Trump supporters would respond. Would they finally acknowledge that he was a dangerous choice for the country? Would they admit that perhaps they made a mistake in supporting him? Or, would they continue to rationalize or defend his actions, finding ways to justify the fallout despite the overwhelming evidence? Below are 11 significant concerns that millions of people believe Trump would enact. So my question to his supporters is simple: What if all of it turns out to be true? How would you reconcile your support in the face of such outcomes? 1. Undermining Democratic Institutions and the Rule of Law There is concern that Trump may undermine constitutional norms, such as checks and balances, and the independence of the judiciary. This includes fears about election interference, weakening voting rights, and potentially refusing to concede future elections. Some even fear he may attempt to remove the two-term limit on the presidency. 2. Authoritarianism and Centralization of Power Critics worry Trump may govern more authoritatively by bypassing Congress, consolidating power, and potentially using federal agencies to target political opponents. Concerns also include attacks on the free press and restricting free speech. 3. Threats to Social Programs Many fear Trump could push for cuts to essential social programs like Social Security and Medicare, which could leave millions of Americans without critical support. There are also concerns he could dismantle the Affordable Care Act, stripping healthcare access from millions. 4. Economic Policy Concerns Critics argue Trump’s policies could harm the economy through tariffs, trade wars, and tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, worsening inequality. There is also concern about weakened labor protections, which could harm workers and undercut wages. 5. Environmental Rollbacks Trump has shown skepticism toward climate change, and there are concerns that he will further roll back environmental protections, undermine international climate agreements, and prioritize fossil fuel interests over clean energy. 6. Foreign Policy and National Security Critics fear Trump’s “America First” foreign policy will isolate the U.S. from its allies, weaken NATO, and embolden authoritarian regimes. His admiration for authoritarian leaders and the potential for nuclear instability are also significant concerns. 7. Social and Civil Rights There is widespread fear that Trump will continue to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, and protections for marginalized groups, particularly through judicial appointments that could overturn existing legal precedents. 8. Cultural and Racial Divisions Trump’s rhetoric has often been seen as stoking racial tensions and promoting intolerance. Critics fear his return could further inflame cultural divisions, militarize law enforcement responses to protests, and harm civil rights movements. 9. Misinformation and Disinformation Trump has been accused of undermining public trust in institutions like the media, the judiciary, and science by spreading misinformation. His promotion of electoral fraud claims and conspiracy theories has also raised concerns about public faith in democracy. 10. Potential for Corruption and Conflicts of Interest Trump has been accused of using the presidency to benefit his personal business interests and has pardoned close allies. There are concerns that he could further enrich himself and shield his associates from legal consequences if re-elected. 11. Destabilizing Federal Agencies Critics fear that Trump’s desire to “drain the swamp” could lead to the dismantling or hollowing out of key federal agencies, such as the EPA, CDC, or State Department, leaving them unable to effectively serve the public interest.

Back in the 80's, when those two Village People songs, YMCA and Macho Man were at their peek popularity, Trump was a heavy club goer in NYC. The Village People thing was everywhere at that time, just like the transvestite themed Rocky Horror Picture Show. Everyone at the time clearly knew these songs were gay anthems, including Trump. Even the dressing styles of the Village People band members became a popular fashion style amongst the gay scene in New York City. So Trump clearly knows the deal with these gay songs. You could try to argue that now he's too old and he's already forgotten these things, but then how could anyone even suggest the man is mentally fit to be president if he can no longer even recognize the overt differences in human sexuality. And that weird little jig you mentioned that he does on stage, that is also very fitting with the context of these two gay themed songs. But don't take my word for it, Dave Bautista explains it a lot better than I, and it appears to further involve giraffes:

It's fantastic that Trump so deeply respects and embraces the LBGTQ community and so openly. He will even play that "YMCA" gay anthem song no less than 3 to 4 times during the course of one rally. Good on him. He also plays "Macho Man", another well known gay anthem. As well as the song "Freedom" by George Michael, again, another fantastic gay anthem. So he's obsessed with gay anthems, that’s super. But instead of playing YMCA, and just these other two songs over and over again, why doesn't somebody give him a full gay anthem playlist? It would at least add some more gay musical variety to his political events. In fact, here are at least 10 more 80’s gay anthems that he should be playing at his rallies. “I Will Survive” – Gloria Gaynor “It’s Raining Men” – The Weather Girls “Smalltown Boy” – Bronski Beat “I’m Coming Out” – Diana Ross “Relax” – Frankie Goes to Hollywood “You Make Me Feel (Mighty Real)” – Sylvester “Like a Virgin” – Madonna “Love is a Stranger” – Eurythmics “So Many Men, So Little Time” – Miquel Brown “True Colors” – Cyndi Lauper Who doesn’t love them all? Can’t go wrong with any of these.

No wonder this bloke has difficulty finding a girlfriend. Who can play the double bass with mangled fingers like that???

I mentioned wine as an example in my OP, but it's all the same. Beer, spirits, wine coolers, etc. It's all poison and 100% toxic to the body, and in multiple ways. Unlike alcohol, cannabis is consumed in many different ways. It can be made into many different edible forms and/or vaporized, none of which poses medical risks. Smoking it is horrible, and the smell can be disruptive to others, but unfortunately it's still the way that many people choose to consume it. Also, too many archaic stereotypes have been posted here about cannabis and the types of people that consume it. Most of that comes from old movies and outdated pop culture, but it is far from the truth. Using cannabis and then going out and meeting people is also great. Makes you smile, more creative and more talkative when used in moderation. Unlike alcohol that slows your speech, causes you to slur words and eventually makes you inebriated/antisocial if you drink too much. I realize some people consume a small amount of alcohol because they enjoy the taste and the feeling of it, and without getting really drunk, but it's still greatly unhealthy, even in small quantities and becomes much more dangerous to one's health as you age. And, no amount of alcohol — not even 1 glass of wine — is safe. But don't take my word for it: https://globalnews.ca/news/4406827/no-amount-of-alcohol-safe-study https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45283401 Lastly, on the long standing cannabis versus alcohol debate, which one of the two is actually administered by doctors for a number of different medical use/health benefits and which one do doctors always tell you to stop consuming right away? I rest my case.

I got a few of the many 20-25 Baht mid-grade strains from Bangkok Kush. They all have nice terps and flavor. THC level is middle of the range on most of them, but the White Wedding strain to me feels as strong as many of the exotic level strains that sell for 120-130 Baht a gram. I was really surprised how good it is. And I see they have it on sale now for 10 Baht a gram: https://bkkushhh.com/shop/hot-promotion/white-wedding/

The post above is the first post from a brand new member and they're sharing a link to try and sell you something. That's spamming possibly a scam or phishing site.

Why do people even drink alcohol? I can’t work it out. They spend a lot of money on wine and the like. Then they spend hours drinking the stuff trying to get snockered. And once they’re properly drunk then they are possibly going to get in a serious car accident, a fight, fall down, throw up and end up lying in a pile of their own vomit, or just wake up with a terrible hangover that lasts 24-48 hours. Not to mention the long term damage it can cause to cognitive brain function, liver, heart, etc. Meanwhile, alcohol consumption keeps falling every year within the younger people demographic and cannabis use continues to increase. So why don’t more older people just use cannabis edibles? Works much better than alcohol. Doesn’t cost much. Gets you zooted for hours and none of the downsides of alcohol.

Who cares. Just another bunch of old moaners from the UK. Don't like it? Don't complain, go live somewhere else where your pension won't be capped. Everyone has choices, right?