I'm 22/F, and adopted. I originally got into the idea of getting therapy for anxiety, depression, etc. and because it's been recommended to me by many people due to my overall, unstable home life, and circumstances of being adopted, which leaves me quite isolated. Which, I do still struggle with feelings regarding my adoption status. But as I've found out, most of my anxiety, depression, and all was being caused by undiagnosed ADHD which I'm currently being medicated for, and it's been working great.
Back when I desperately needed therapy, I didn't actually have access to it at the time. So I did a lot of research into self-care, started focusing on myself, and have made lots of improvements in my overall life, though my home life I guess you could still consider to be unstable? I am adopted, but I am adopted by my biological grandparents and since becoming an adult navigating relationships, specifically with family members, has gotten a lot more complex and difficult.
But since I've started college, since getting medicated, and since making all these improvements to my life that were making me unhappy before, my overall mental health has skyrocketed. I'm still not as confident as I want to be, and still struggle with social anxiety here and there, but compared to before? It feels like a walk in the park now. Though, I am still pretty socially isolated and that can be rough at times, but I'm trying to get back out there and make some friends, I'm even trying to date again, as scary as it is for me. I feel confident enough to say I'm capable of enjoying my life again and just be content, satisfied, and happy.
My last appointment with my therapist though was back in November, and I accidentally ghosted her because I forgot about the appointment and overslept. Never really got around to rescheduling. But I still have the option to schedule appointments with her and message back and forth on their patient portal, so I've been considering maybe reaching out and making an appointment. It's just, I don't want to take up time where she could be helping somebody who needs it more than I do. I don't feel like I need help solving my issues, in fact I feel very capable of solving them all on my own - within my control that is. But at the same time - I do have a lot of feelings that I've covered up over the years regarding my family and situation. I've been in some crazy situations in the past, that I put myself in thinking it would ease the pain I felt at the time, and I have indeed had some very dark moments both as a result of these situations and situations that were out of my control. But right now, I don't feel like I'm the same person I was then. I feel like a completely new person - someone I'm much happier to be. So is going back into therapy even worth it? How do I know?

Hello all, hope you're having a lovely day
I'm very new to this, but I'm a 20yr old college student looking to meet someone and become close ideally but if not that's okay. Would be open to something casual or serious depending on how we're feeling.
I'm 5'11 with a pretty average build, brown skin with brown eyes and thick coily hair. I do wanna start going to the gym so potential gym buddies? I play a lot of games if that's something you're interested in. This isn't exclusive to people in my area, I don't mind interacting with people online. We could text or call all day or night. I'm usually pretty available if you're looking for constant attention or support. Conversely, it would be pretty fun to go out and do things together such as walking in a park or going out to eat.
I'm probably looking for someone around my age with similar interests. But of course it's okay if we're not entirely identical in that regard. As long as you're kind and respectful I'm sure we'll get along just fine :)
I'm a pretty laid back person, I will go with your flow and I'm incredibly patient. Also I've been told by many people that my voice is pleasant to listen to? So if anything I can help you fall asleep at night. Not sure what else to put but if you wanna know more you're welcome to ask!

This applies to all the “Karens” who love to stir shit up for no reason and waste precious time. Had an encounter today with one stating that the public park’s court wasn’t a public space to share with others in the community. She went as far as calling the park rangers that NEVER came and then called the COPS who didn’t do anything either. The cops were only annoyed that they were called into a situation that could’ve been calmly talked over. We explained that she didn’t have a permit to kick us out the park and unless she showed us then we would’ve left. This all could’ve been resolved by just saying “hey we would like to use this space here. How long have you been here and can we agree to x amount of time so we can also enjoy the park too?” Instead it’s a “get the FUCK off the court, just kick them off”. The thing is she doesn’t have one therefore, she can’t legally kick us off and so the COPS wasted their time coming to a park instead of dealing with REAL CRIME. Even the COPS agreed that if there is NO PERMIT for park reservations there is no need for us to leave the area of the park. Miserable people have nothing better in their lives than to project their frustration and anger towards others due to underlying issues that they refuse to repair.

I'm going to just make this a post, so that I may reference/link it in the future as needed (and so that it may draw the attention, now, of whatever moderators this discussion may or may not interest).
I've been participating in this sub for awhile. I offer some opinions that rub people's amygdala the right way, some that rub it the wrong way, and it's usually pretty easy for me to predict on that basis which will result in a return of upvotes or downvotes (getting the ol' frontal cortex to intervene beforehand is another story, of course). I don't really care about my internet points, so I'm fine in either case. Go ahead, hit that downvote button - I don't care!
What I'm beginning to care a bit more about is: overtly ad baculum arguments put forth with the intent (or simply, the probable effect) of limiting the necessary scope of this discussion. Now, I do know better than to accuse anyone of having nefarious intent, with 100% confidence. Regardless of whether that intent is ultimately present, however, putting forth this kind of fallacy (and having it be popularly accepted) will have a chilling/censorious effect, and it is consequently highly problematic.
Yes, my contention is that being allowed to consider the morality/legality of filicide/infanticide is within the necessary scope of any good-faith discussion about abortion. Why?
To convincingly answer this question, let's answer another:

Why is abortion being debated in the first place?

Abortion is quite the hot-button issue, and some of us certainly don't see why it should be. Shouldn't it be self-evident that our own preexisting beliefs are all that should really matter? There shouldn't even need to be a debate!
Regardless, the debate persists. It persists because of all the differing presuppositions and motivations brought into it by those that stand to be affected by any given conclusion on the matter (which is, broadly speaking, all of society).
Some of us have the very reasonable motivation of not wanting to be forced, by law, into remaining pregnant for no good/sufficient reason, on the presupposition(s) that:

• ZEFs do not merit the same protections as newborn babies or young children because of missing innate qualities/capacities they have yet to develop. And/Or, (!)
• ZEFs do not merit the same protections as newborn babies or young children because they're actively threatening the health/autonomy of the pregnant person gestating them, regardless of whatever innate qualities/capacities they might presently possess.

Others of us have the very reasonable motivation of not wanting it to be legal to kill certain classes/categories of people, on the presupposition that ZEFs do, in fact, exist in the same general moral category as newborn babies and/or young children, and shouldn't be killed for the same reasons (shared humanity, future like ours, etc).
Ok, those are understandable motivations. But notice that there were actually two entirely distinct presuppositions (or, justifications) that might be accounting for why someone might decide to label themselves "pro-choice", and sincerely support/defend the right to abort.
Clearly, it is unambiguously not outside of the scope of this topic to independently consider the qualia of the conceptus, and then appeal to some measurably absent characteristic that would, in one's opinion, be a strict prerequisite for the granting of the legal protection known as "right-to-life", as a valid method of argument for the resulting permissibility of abortion. That is to say, it is not impossible that someone's decision to support abortion's morality and/or its legality is ultimately derived (perhaps, exclusively derived) from this form of independent consideration.
Just as "viability" (theoretical ability of a conceptus to survive separated from its parent/host) and "sentience" (capacity to experience physical pain) are fetal capacities bound to be of some legitimate interest in the course of debating the morality of abortion, "self-awareness" is as well. When and to what extent do fetuses become self-aware?
Enter philosopher Peter Singer, who argues explicitly for the permissibility/legality of infanticide (up to 28 days after birth) on this very basis:

From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

He isn't alone in making this argument. Mary Anne Warren (late writer and philosophy professor) makes a similar argument in her paper 'On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion', and arrives at a similar conclusion: that the very same observations about the (entirely or partially absent) qualia of the conceptus in its state prior to birth would reasonably motivate us to acknowledge that being born, by itself, doesn't really change all that much. She writes:

One of the most troubling objections to the argument presented in this article is that it may appear to justify not only abortion but infanticide as well. A newborn infant is not a great deal more personlike than a ninemonth fetus, and thus it might seem that if late-term abortion is sometimes justified, then infanticide must also be sometimes justified. Yet most people consider that infanticide is a form of murder, and thus never justified.
While it is important to appreciate the emotional force of this objection, its logical force is far less than it may seem at first glance. There are many reasons why infanticide is much more difficult to justify than abortion, even though if my argument is correct neither constitutes the killing of a person.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva together make the case that "the newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent" in their article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?.
Inevitably, when I (or any of these other esteemed gentlemen-and-women) are asked to justify our support for abortion, our reasoning/argument will be general enough to be interpreted as support for filicide/infanticide, up to a certain point. This is unavoidable (and true!), given our sincerely-held beliefs on the subject.
This brings us to the crux of the issue:

What is being "aborted", exactly, when we're "debating abortion"?

Some of the participants on this forum (who I will not name) seem to be interested in policing the way this question can be justifiably answered. There are (grammatically speaking) two perfectly-valid grammatical objects one might have in mind, when one is trying to discuss what is, in one's view, the object of central importance to the abortion debate.

1. The ongoing life of the conceptus/child
2. The pregnancy that life directly inflicts

To "abort" is a verb, which simply means "to bring to a premature end".
For debate participants primarily motivated by not remaining pregnant against their will, it is very understandable that, from their point of view, abortion would naturally refer to aborting pregnancies.
For debate participants primarily motivated by protecting the right-to-life of unborn people, it is equally understandable that abortion would naturally refer to aborting the life of the unborn child.
In practical terms, there is no difference. A pregnancy ends prematurely when (and only when) the life of the conceptus does, and it is subsequently flushed/extracted from the body. But in philosophical terms, there is a world of difference.
From our analysis above, of what motivates this debate to occur in the first place, we can realize the following:
If it were hypothetically possible to abort the pregnancy prematurely, without ending the life of the child causing it, it's very likely that some respectable number of pregnant people would be doing just that. And to that extent, the impetus for having the debate would be lessened, directly. The pro-life side would be satisfied, to the extent unborn babies are no longer being killed, and the pro-choice side would be satisfied, to the extent that pregnancies are no longer being compelled by force of law.
Conversely, we may consider the possibility of ending the life of the child, but without necessarily ending pregnancy (leaving open the option of maintaining the pregnancy for the full nine months, as though the child were still alive). Obviously, this would be a much less chosen option. But the more important thing to realize is: here, the impetus for having the debate has not been lessened in the slightest. The pro-life side would still object to the killing of the entity with contested moral value, with or without the continuation of any associated pregnancy.
Therefore, object of central importance to the abortion debate - the thing that ultimately causes the debate - is not the subjective experience of pregnancy (as arduous as that experience may be). It is the contested personhood and right-to-life of the life of the child being aborted/killed, at varying points in time.
So, if we are going to be in the business of policing what can be "properly" or "rightly" considered as the "true" or "best" object of consideration here, that policing would logically run in one direction as opposed to the other. Fortunately, there is usually no pressing need to do any policing - only to make a good-faith effort to listen and respond to what is actually being said to you.

Putting it all together

Now, we have established two facts:

1. That the principal object of consideration (if there is to be one) in the context of the "abortion debate" is the ongoing life and disputed personhood/right-to-life of the conceptus/child at different points in time.
2. A certain fraction of the people who sincerely consider the personhood/right-to-life of the conceptus come to the conclusion that concepti should not, in fact, be regarded as persons (or as possessing a right-to-life) until some point in time well after birth (ie, a certain point in time).

From these two facts we may directly infer the necessity and relevance of considering (proposing, debating, refuting, etc) the personhood/right-to-life of the object ultimately motivating the continued existence of this debate, before or after birth.

Final considerations

I have heard tell that there have been conversations among the mods here as to whether my progressive stance on this issue is perhaps too progressive. I have not been privy to these conversations, but I would like to offer this post as my general argument in favor of both being allowed to remain here, and being allowed to argue my point of view in good faith, without it being subject to removal by virtue of being "off-topic" to the debate.
I was once informed that my kind of pro-choice advocacy might "get us in trouble with the admins". Neither myself (nor any of the good company I'm in, by virtue of advocating for the legality of post-birth abortion) are promoting hate against any marginalized group, advocating illegal/extralegal activity, or any engaging in any other claimed violation of Reddit site-wide policies. Any claims to the contrary are a bad-faith attempt at silencing and dismissing the argument I am making, and should themselves be subject to removal under rule one.
Hopefully, this clarifies at least some of my position, as well as at least some of what it means to engage in good faith with opinions you do not presently hold. Thank you for reading.

There are 3 Oro oro#1 is chill oro#2 I haven't seen them oro#3 has been adopted by ares so they are prob cool anothrinferum dog has 2 things in side of her there are 2provs one that is form another world they are pretty cool and this world prov she is horny as fuck and she fucked one of the 69 dogs and my brother and she still wants more and her father hates her good noxus has brainwashed on of ares eyeball brothers thantos is nowhere to be found my sister's pet can open rifts my brother is almost dead rn yharim is pretty chill did miss anything

(Posted here a while back about the first round of evidence I had, but later deleted it since this is a throwaway account)
My [26M] fiancé [26F] has a male coworker [33M, wife, 2 kids] she’s been talking to behind my back. No sex but I think that’s only because they haven’t gotten the chance to be alone together. Just texting and flirting in person for now. First caught her back in Nov ‘22 just a couple weeks before she knew I would be proposing (I told her I’d do it by the end of ‘22). The flirty texts she sent to him were sent while she was right beside me at a football game the whole night, and talked about coming down to their tailgate after the game to camp out together and that she would bring the beer. She also admitted to her friends she had some “‘mysterious” feelings for him. Her friends are just as worthless as her because they’re almost defending her instead of trying to put some since into her that she shouldn’t follow through with it unless she wants her life to fall apart. She told me she wouldn’t do it again and that I’m the real guy she loves and she wants to get married blah blah… I forgave her and decided not to call off the engagement.
Now I find out she tried to get him to come join her and her girls night with two of her close friends at a restaurant while I was out of town for work. This coworker thankfully no longer works at the office in our city, but he still works for the same company in a city 3hrs from us. They have to see each other 1-3 times a month for work-related meetings and stuff. He was in town for a work training event and I’m almost certain he would’ve met up with them and my fiancé would’ve hooked up with him if he didn’t bring his wife and kids with him.
Now for the toughest part (besides the 2 dogs & 8.5yrs of my life that’s been wasted) — we both are on the mortgage for our house even though we’re not married yet. Figured 8yrs was long enough to get to know someone before owning a home but shocker… Wondering what my options are at this point? I haven’t confronted her about my most recent discoveries. I just need some advice on a path forward. Should I wait until they actually hook up to have more concrete evidence of infidelity? Right now I just have a ton of flirty screenshots of text messages between them, and her expressing her feelings for him to her friends over text.
I’ve put so much money, blood, sweat, and tears into fixing up this house for us, and now I fear she could potentially walk away with it in the end or we’d have to sell it to completely split from each other. I’ve put more into it and feel like I deserve it. TIA for any advice, guess I just needed to vent.

Okay so I cant remember what year but around 2010 I had this dog called caramel. Im pretty sure that was the name it came with. It was like a robot dog, and I know it was a daschund bc it had big droopy ears. The whole thing besides the machinery inside was rubbery, like the skin of a baby alive doll, the ears were rubbery but you couldn't flop or fold them. It stood on all fours and could not sit down. The color was a brown Caramel color (hence the name) I know there was a dalmation version of this toy too, because originally I had that one but I VIVIDLY remember going into Target and swapping it for caramel. I was kinda big, like a little less than a foot long and like 8-9 inches tall, and it had a HUGE disproportionate head compared to the body. Before anyone asks, no its not a Zoomer dog, it wasnt actually supposed to look like a robot. And no its not an LPS either, although the overall design was very similar.
I live in the US if this helps
If someone could help me find this damn toy my curiosity will finally be put to rest. There is no way my mind just made this up, its too real.

I am currently involved in IGP, and I'm wanting to get a groen. Im wanting this dog to be a companion first, and sport dog second. In my experience, working lines are very hard headed, neurotic, and go go go, which makes it hard for them to not be a kennel dog, though I manage somehow lol! Those of you with working line experience, are groenies this way too, or are they flexible enough to be able to be best of both worlds? Thanks!

So I was thinking of a new idea for a standalone game or DPA game by SuperMassive, my idea for the story is this: The cast consists of 7 protagonists, six brothers named Walter, John, Charlie, Nick, Leon, and Mark, and their cousin Kyle, they're part of an immortal family that owns a college, they have existed for several generations due to being blessed/cursed with long life, they can't ever deteriorate, but can still die in other ways, even a dog in the family has long life, Walter is a father and has three sons named Tim, James, and Lukas, John has two sons named Gabe and Mike, Charlie has daughter named Beth, Nick has two sons named Alfred and Connor, Liam has three sons and a daughter, and Mark has a son named Junior, Kyle has no kids but helps his oldest cousin Walter with his three sons, the two can have a complicated relationship and sometimes argue, there's the father, Taylor, the mother Jenny, Taylor's brother William, Jenny's brother Aaron, Grandpa Edmund, and various in laws, overall a huge family that the seven protagonists try to protect at all costs. They often slightly change their appearance with every generation, so that people don't learn about their immortality, one day however, a threatening sentient creature named Belthazor traps them in a town after they go on a hike, it's up to the protagonists to make sure they all escape.

Can't be bothered writing my typical longwinded post (edit: I guess I did) but wanted to get a conversation going - I'm a tall, fairly good looking guy with well developed social skills, so occasionally I'll try my hand at striking up a friendly conversation with an attractive stranger to see where it takes me.
I'm not talking about lame schizoid approaches walking over with my hand outstretched and introducing myself like a used car salesman, I mean making a wry observation about something going on around us or asking their opinion or something more natural.
Most women act like I've driven up to them in a white van and offered them candy.
Usually they relax when they realize I'm a decent sociable guy, though some of them stay on guard until I end the conversation and bid them a nice day. But I just find it incredible how unsettled people get when a stranger stops acting like they're invisible, even if it's just to make a funny comment.
Even when I was handing out fliers for the local dog refuge many women still got a jolt when I approached them.
Surely it wasn't always this bad.
I realize that negative experiences have probably colored their perception and having random conversations with strangers isn't the norm these days but I had no idea it was so anathema to most people.
I want to start directly approaching more women in public because life's short and I'm sick of walking past cute ladies then pulling out my phone to swipe on sex workers and scammers and single mums who look nothing like their photos and all of that bullshit you've dealt with if you've used apps, and I'm not managing to meet many women organically in life, but my past experiences cold approaching don't augur well. It's hard to have confidence when you know that you're making people uncomfortable, at least initially.
Accepting that the success rate is going to be low whichever way you go, what advice would you have for

So here's the plot, i watched that movie in my childhood probably on ETV black and white i think.
Remember only one scen:
It's the desert where 2 children got lost along with their pet dog, soon some tribe find them and bring those children to their home and give good hospitality first day, the next day their dog was missing and those tribe people eats it, only bones left, kid's after seeing this they fled.
I only remember this much.

My 8 year old Maltese had a lot of blood discharge from her genitals which made me concerned and took her to the vet immediately. The vet ran some blood tests and ultrasound and told me my dog had open-type pyometra. I was told to have my dog spayed but when I asked for the total cost of the surgery I was shocked because it was almost 350 USD. I'm still a senior in college and my parents don't have enough to pay for my dog's surgery. I asked the vet if I could delay my decision since I don't have the money and she said sure since the platelet, hemoglobin, and white blood cell levels of my dog are still alarming for her to undergo surgery. She gave me meds for the dog instead (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.)
We were told to return a week later to run some tests again to see if my dog can be ready for surgery. By that time, I still don't have 350 in my account to pay for the surgery which makes me think that I should inquire in the city veterinary office which I think would be a lot cheaper (since the vet clinic is privately-owned).
My question is, is it gonna be safe for my 8 yo dog to undergo surgery? Considering the life span of her breed she may have 3-5 years more left in her which makes her close to being a senior dog at the moment. She's not lethargic at all and is still much playful and appetite is good as usual. She stopped having blood discharge the last 24 hrs it's just now a few drops of pus. Anybody here have similar experience? Thanks in advance for the replies!

Plan Events and Corporate Meetings at Aahana Resort Jim Corbett

Aahana — The Corbett Wilderness in Jim Corbett National Park, makes for an excellent venue for offsite meetings and conferences. The resort is ideal for business meetings, boardroom meetings and other small corporate events. It comes with state-of-the-art equipment to help run your events smoothly and make it a grand success.If planning a meeting in Corbett, the outdoor setup is a cherry on the cake. Here at Aahana Resort, we arrange the perfect outdoor meeting setup capable of handling the gathering from more than 100 pax. Our lawns, and. Our outdoors are perfect for stage shows, launches, annual meets, or any other corporate event.