flesh

correct, so the problem is the system that let's people vote who shouldn't be. You can't educate people with mental disorders and Iq's below 80 for example. Also, you can't change man with a hammer syndrome, generational welfare. If these groups constitute 40% of the pop, it's inevitable what'll happen. My bro has a mental disorder, he definitely shouldn't vote. The only reason he's not on the street is his family. "Some think he's jesus, others think he's not, millions are watching him because of this" and there's the "aliens who tell him to commit suicide". He can vote. People who can't read can vote. etc etc

Gotta go play nintendo with my 5 year old but Yes! The female porn being the biggest seller since forever, yes! Why is it the porn it is and not other?

This treatment of free will hurts a bit in the way that my writing likely hurts some of you reading it, lol. Also, the treatment of there being differences throughout time of the definition of romance excluding evo psych as a sort of base programming being a part of the picture. A couple dozen books and more experiences flash through my mind. Which I won't get into unless someone wants book reco's on the subject. Directly and indirectly related. My thoughts here aren't really directed at you as I don't really know your position, just guessing. I'll keep this short because unless I had a 3 hours tete a tete with you, I don't believe I'd shift your thinking more than half way. Keep in mind my position is we don't know and I'm okay with not knowing. The metaphysic I'm leaning towards allows for a will of sorts. I'd assume most people believe they have libertarian free will with significant frequency and magnitude, my argument is that there's scientific evidence that limits it and that you can experience evidence in the first person for yourself. Everything third person does flow through the first person after all. I know many of you have read Kahneman's thinking fast and slow. You know we have shared biases and heuristics, that are irrational (but maybe useful, useful how/when? ). Shortly before dying Kahneman was asked how learning all that he did changed the way he did things and he said that it didn't change a thing, he was as he was before. Does this increase or decrease our free will? Can you remain without confirmation bias without intending to do so, in the moment? If you pay attention to these biases and heuristics for a year, and then stop paying attention to them, to what degree have you overcome the default mode? To what degree did you really overcome them during the year you tried? Why is the default mode the way it is? How many of them can you remember now? Reductio ad absurdum, let's go there. If you take free will to the fullest definition, one could say that one could choose to be perfectly happy in solitary confinement indefinitely. You'd simply choose contentment (as an aside I was quite content when locked up for 105 days, not solitary, haha). Of course this is absurd, so what people mean by free will is less free than this. The question is how much less or if there is any. I'll appeal to your own inner experiences for brevity's sake. If you ask yourself to pick a song, the first that comes to mind, what was the song? Did you choose it? Where did it come from? Could you have chosen a different song? Try not to think, zero thoughts. Most can't do it, nobody can indefinitely. If you can't stop thinking, are you authoring your thinking? If a thought arises in consciousness, where was the choosing? If you can stop thinking for 10 seconds, or 10 minutes, when that absence of thinking ends, did you choose the next thought that came to mind? What % of your thoughts throughout the day are just a appearance in subjectivity seemingly from nowhere vs those you feel like you authored if you pay attention? Why is the thoughts that you seemingly author generally directed towards what humans normally direct their thoughts toward and not something that's not that? For those that believe the fact that romance was different in some ways in the past excludes the possibility of some evolutionary principles impacting what we attend to in sexual relationships largely, I'd just ask you to try some evo psych books. If evolution programs our bodies in certain ways but not others, ways that result in our genes being more likely to replicate, why wouldn't you expect that to happen to our minds? Is it cultural/nurture that makes you horny? You wouldn't be horny if born on a deserted island by yourself? When you are horny, does your psychological state change? If your mind is programmed to attend to some things, that result in genes replicating themselves, to the exclusion of other things, does this increase or decrease your free will? Is this attending limited to only being horny in regards to sexual relationships? If you believe we are a blank slate, that's so extreme at this point, I'd suggest partaking in some cognitive dissonance and read the overwhelming material against it. It is difficult to tease out what's more likely but there are some interesting ways that are more likely than others. Sorry if this isn't very clear as I've only rarely discussed these ideas with anyone, not sure what's effective. Also, in general, I don't think it's good for most to go down this path. You will if your willed.

Wow. Thanks. I’ll give a couple a try.

When I was reading sutree by cormac McCarthy recently I kept getting flashback to the book of the new sun. I can’t pinpoint why. I guess it’s the style/prose/ non goal oriented unfolding meandering way it’s presented.

Well, I'd say, most of what is called Romance, is better explained by applying evolutionary principles to human psychology. Our sub or unconscious mind is doing a long of work which we mistake for our own choices in relationships. You could say we have limited free will at least. I could add Danny kahneman's work on biases and heuristics, which is more known here, to the work of reasons why we have less free will than we think. I'd point you for starters to the book, The ape that understood the universe, for a fun intro to evo psych. Off the top of my head, iirc in David buss's 1000 page college text on the subject. There's a study, initially predicted by evo psych principles, that men should prefer younger women. In the past, sex=babies. Younger women are more fertile, genes that prefer fertile women, are more likely to survive. Therefore, there should be a first person experience, psychologically, that drives men to young women, a what it's like to be the man desiring young women. Of course all this may seem obvious so far, though you'd be surprised. But how do you prove or get closer to truth here? How do you know it's closer to nature than nurture? Maybe if all the media had shown you 40 year old women as as ideal sexual partners your whole life, you'd prefer them? Some may make up a story that just so. Idk, maybe older women are better in bed, are sexually liberated, not so difficult to have sex with etc. I'm going to butcher this but the study went something like this. They showed the outline of a woman's hip to waist ratio from behind. No face, no chest. They had something like half a dozen different hip to waist ratios. They asked men in 40 countries including some hunter gatherer tribes from ages 15-75 which hip to waist ratio they preferred. The results were a gaussian bell curve but steeper on the edges. They then took the preferred hip to waist ratios and overlayed them on 1000's of pictures of women worldwide of all ages. The ideal hip to waist ratio correlated with a woman of 23 worldwide, regardless of the age of the man. The 2nd and third best hip to waist ratio corelated with just a bit older or younger. This also is peak fertility for women. Or maybe it's a year before peak, something like that. So, that's not very romantic and it's my understanding that there's many underlying psychological processes directing us all the time in such a fashion that were unaware of, because like most things, it's always been that way and therefore isn't questioned. I also find understanding things in this way has helped me in relationships because I can recognize when others are doing without thinking and it just bounces off me, it's another one of those. Also my own thoughts, which I don't author, can be disregarded. I've not given up on free will, it's in the I know I don't know and will never know enough to even define it category and nor does anybody else. That said, I can still enjoy the archetypal dream manifestations that are great fiction. Pretending is what we do. i put heart of darkness on my list. Now I know why the climb I did in Thailand has that name.

With you being a thoughtful poster I found this interesting. I've also read most of the sci fi books I've seen here, not forever war, but it's on the shelf. Hyperion 1 and 2 are in my top three sci fi's of 100 hundred ish. However, I don't believe I've read any romance books, ever. I can't be sure I'll like them as I tend to side with the evolutionary psychologists when it comes to relationships but I'm open to trying. Can you give me a top three "romance" books?

Loved book of the new sun. Loved Hyperion 1 and 2. Dune trilogy. Can't recommend them enough. Can't wait to forget Hyperion somewhat and read it again. -Also, make sure you read speaker for the dead, if you read enders game, excellent. Second in the series. For sci fi readers(I don't believe these were mentioned yet). Both are hard sci fi, dealing with a evolutionary experiment gone wrong one and two, first contact with a let's say totally different sort of species. Totally different yet adheres to evolutionary principles, and the interesting bit, let's say they worship evolution. -Children of time, iirc won a retro hugo award -Blindsight, one of my all time faves and unique, it's a slap in the face when it clicks. I've also recently read, Blood Meridian, Cormac Mccarthy, extreme philosophical violence, it might bother you. What happens when a group of young men in a lawless west have superior firepower? Suttree, Cormac McCarthy. I was Suttree for a couple weeks. Both excellent. Right now reading the unabridged (1300 pages), penguin classic, Count of Monte Cristo. Read the abridged long ago, recently saw the new french movie and there was much in it I didn't remember! Didn't even realize there was a full version! only a few hundred pages in, great so far. As always great books are always better than the best movies made from them. Also, All things are full of gods, by David Bentley hart. The latter is non fiction, deals with mind/consciousness, anti physicalist/materialist, sort of his own take on let's call it idealism, a god like entity as the fundamental basis for reality. It's fun the way it's setup, four gods, hanging out, debating metaphysics. One clearly on the side of consciousness/mind being fundamental and another your current classical materialist. Other's in between or with something to add. This is maybe my 10th book on the subject. It's worth a try if your a materialist (most of you are by default as it's the accepted current metaphysics). If you want to challenge your assumptions, this is a great one for that. Does matter create mind or mind create matter? If you think the answer is obvious, this might be the book for you!

That all sounds centrist, excluding the progressive values, unless your talking about the progressive values of 20 years ago. I even asked ai what's considered centrist in canada, in case I was missing something. Modern progressives are the woke. Maybe more a classical liberal with an strong emphasis on big govt programs. I'd argue you can't be for big govt and for balanced budgets if for no other reason than it's never been done and no a unicorn year doesn't count. The bigger the govt in the west, the larger the debt, that's just what happens, and it accelerates over time. You get to the running out of other peoples money part eventually and you hit the negative growth side of the laffer curve, and if you don't like the laffer curve just imagine that 80% tax rates are a disincentive to work hard compared to 30% etc=less work writ large. You get to the debt/inflation/death spiral. I understand if you did it with a balanced budget, that part wouldn't happen. However the negative growth laffer curve would. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy but this is what's happening now in the west isn't it? There's no debate to be had? Anyways, you can still believe in things, that they are true and right lets say, despite outcomes, or what's practical. Just for the record, if a dem said what you just said, minus the progressive values part, in its current incarnation, minus the national healthcare part, I'd vote for that person. Also, I trust science, not scientists. Medicinal facts insofar as they are true in the context in which they are studied and no other contexts, not doctors. I'm not sure why this is debated either, anyone can ask AI Ten different prompts regarding the history of Scientists/doctors seriously messing up. You could read The structure of scientific revolutions. The history of iatrogenics, which I believe trans surgery on kids (progressive value) will become a part of eventually. Look at the food pyramid we grew up with. For example, based on my limited understanding (could be wrong but wanted a current example) GLP1's reduce appetite, reduce intestinal motility, and I don't believe they know much other than that. They don't know how reducing intestinal motility for a decade or two could be a very bad thing. They talk about all of it's other benefits as if magic, however when you see these other benefits they are mostly what you'd expect from someone losing weight, weighing less in general, and fasting/calorie restriction. They don't know the depths of the causal chain that's being interrupted before and after the effect of the drug and it's long term implications and importantly, they don't make this clear to people. They list side effects but not the total obliviousness of their understanding in general. Any time a real scientist is speaking, They equivocate, they qualify, they elaborate on where this or that is or isn't or might not be true and why. They know all the holes in their argument and they don't spare the holes as best they can. They don't want to be right, they want to be accurate. This simply is not what most humans are, no matter their title. They do not act like the final authority.

Looks good. Chugging away.

https://www.cnbc.com/berkshire-hathaway-portfolio/

Correct.

On hbo, a knight of the seven kingdoms, is very good. too bad it’s based on a novella. Written by George rr Martin. I’m very picky so hopefully you’ll like it. Hero stuff, well written.

Anyone have a x twitter account? aparently the original meme video is from Xerias (@xerias_x. It might make more sense in this context, although stupid to post out of context, or in general. Personally, I'd prefer being the ape out of the options listed below, haha. Anyways, it's bad, but not as bad as portrayed, imo. There's some serious villainizing and heinous caricatures of trump out there and on this forum. This one touches the dream of lefties, blatant, hidden rascism in the hearts of righties. Video Content and Origin Depictions: The video portrayed President Trump as a lion. Other political figures were depicted as follows: Barack and Michelle Obama: Depicted as primates/apes. Joe Biden: Depicted as a baboon or primate eating a banana. Kamala Harris: Depicted as a tortoise. Hillary Clinton: Depicted as a warthog. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Depicted as a donkey. Hakeem Jeffries: Depicted as a meerkat. Zohran Mamdani: Depicted as a hyena. Music: The segment featuring the Obamas was set to the 1961 song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". Origin: The clip was traced back to a video shared in October 2025 by a conservative meme creator known as Xerias on X (formerly Twitter). Infamous Negative Caricature Tropes The "Trump Baby" Balloon: A massive, orange, diaper-clad inflatable caricature that became a global symbol of anti-Trump protests, specifically designed to mock his temperament. "Trump-Putin" Imagery: During the "Russiagate" era, numerous cartoons and memes depicted Trump in submissive or compromising positions with Vladimir Putin. Physical Features: Many negative caricatures hyper-focus on specific traits, such as: The "Flying Wig" / Wind-Blown Hair: Memes capturing his hair in high winds. Troll Doll Comparisons: Side-by-side images comparing his hair and expression to the vintage dolls. Miniaturization: Satirical art often depicts him as physically small or with "humiliatingly miniature" features.

I read ordinary men a few years ago, really good. Not like that book but broadly covering the personal psychological experiences that are part and parcel of large wars, I liked the forgotten highlander as well. My two cents, if your going to "keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you" your going against the grain but not for going against the grains sake. You'd have to have principals based on truthier stuff, defined as requiring the fewest assumptions to be true and everything is a belief but those that require fewer conditions likelier to be closer to bedrock. You'd need a strong relationship with truth, before the event. How often do you challenge your assumptions? Many of them are not their because you put them there. If your 1% of anything, it would feel like alienation, you'd be very different, 99% of the time metaphorically you'd experience conflict, you'd be considered highly disagreeable by others. You'd feel out of sorts, cognitive dissonance all around, seeking confirmation (bias) and rarely finding it. You'd need a large degree of self sufficiency when being disconfirmed all around. Most people wouldn't want to be around you, if you spoke your mind, they'd suffer cognitive dissonance, you'd experience their negativity. Consider what it would feel like to be the 1% person/outcast, know that it would happen, don't be surprised when it does. Expect. I'm more in the camp of being surprised that people aren't just destroying each other constantly, it's a miracle, and I wonder why, and try to understand. I doubt it has much to do with human nature. What it does have to do with is worth keeping an eye on. I was thinking the other day, and I don't know to what degree it's true or not, that maybe sciences pre conditions for existing is based on iron age religions and the popularization of a truth existing in the first place. That is, of course we can find philosophers going back a long ways discussing truth but very few of them had any large effect on the slow moving molasses that is cultural base programming. Nothing compared to the religions. This thing called truth existing for the masses would certainly contribute to the notion that we can find truth and should find it. God orders things and that order can be found, understood, utilized, in the ether. The unconscious programming that most would never recognize in themselves. This juxtaposed to where science absent religion, where we are now, seems to lead the masses to new religions. People create religions after all, full stop. One ends, another begins. Are the new ones so grounded in truth? Woke? Post modernism? There is no truth except what people make, despite that truth being illogical if you make it. What's happening to the sciences in universities? If your new god is woke, your purposefully not looking at what you don't like, your triggered by it, a mental health condition even. If there is truth, you seek it wherever it is. Part of what made science sexy for many of us is that it didn't give a f@#k about the cultural orthodoxy. Turns out maybe it just didn't care about the religious cultural orthodoxy. It was baptized in it's fight with religion for hearts and minds despite being created by it. It still cares about fitting in to what's popular, in the bubbles it's practiced most, so long as it's not conventionally religious. Maybe it's downfall. Not religious but I respect many of them.

I think the birth rates and the ballooning costs of socialistic aspects of western govt's is all you need to know to know the west needs immigrants. Increasing birth rates seems to be an intractable problem, I have my thoughts why, but for example, in the countries where there is more money thrown at the problem, longer maternity/paternity leave, child care subsidies, etc, there's lower birth rates than those without and the declining trend remains. Implicit here is that the immigrants are adding value to society, net tax payers, in the USA this is only the top half of the country on average, obviously there's plenty of exception here. Also, second and third generations, in the past have generally improved on this metric. Increasingly what's being discussed is should we or should we not identify which immigrants bring the most value and target them. I don't see anything wrong with optimizing your immigration if you have the ability to do so. For example, one problem is if you only bring in low wage workers it brings down the wages of low wage workers, hurting those hurting most to varying degrees, making them more likely to be dependent on govt and creating the vicious cycle that is generational welfare. Therefore, ideally you'd bring in proportionate amounts of people at all socioeconomic stages thereby simply duplicating what already exists in your country and growing gdp and fed total tax revenue in kind. Also the age of immigrants, if they are old, on average they'll be less productive, if young, they'll contribute for decades. Shouldn't we target them them? If done advantageously, USA could assimilate maybe a couple million a year and spread them around the country. I can see reason in arguments for helping some that are hurting most however that doesn't mean you can't mostly focus on being pragmatic. 90/10 More controversially, if a country has an average IQ of 80, shouldn't you be more careful about who you're letting in? There are many countries like this, look it up. I think it'd be easy to include something like this in immigration requirements. You can look up videos of interviews with people who have 60-85 Iq's, it's quite shocking. For context: The U.S. military does not use traditional IQ tests, but requires a minimum score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which functions similarly. Most branches require an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) percentile score of at least 31 for high school graduates, roughly equating to an IQ of 90–92 or above. Key Requirements and Information: The "83" Rule: Research indicates that, for the most part, the military does not accept individuals with an IQ below approximately 83, as this was found to be the minimum level required to train for tasks. ASVAB vs. IQ: The ASVAB is highly correlated with intelligence tests (approx. 0.8 correlation). Minimum Score (AFQT): A minimum score of 31 is generally required for the Army and Navy. Other branches may have higher standards (e.g., 36 for Air Force, 32 for Marine Corps). Exceptions: Applicants with a GED may require a minimum score of 50. In some cases, the Department of Defense can accept individuals with scores as low as the 10th percentile, which roughly translates to an IQ of 83 Contextual Factors: Recruit Quality: The military generally selects from the top two-thirds of the population, excluding the bottom third of test-takers. Officers: Officers must meet much higher standards and typically take the AFOQT instead of the ASVAB. Alternatives: If an applicant scores between 21 and 30, they may be eligible for the Future Soldier Preparatory Course to improve their score.

This is some serious bubble talk. Somali, Based on 2014-2023 data, approximately 81% of Somali households in Minnesota use at least one form of means-tested welfare, such as food stamps or Medicaid, compared to 21% of native households Center for Immigration Studies. While 27% receive cash assistance (vs. 6% native), reports also highlight significant economic contributions, with the community contributing $8 billion to the state economy. Key details regarding Somali welfare usage in Minnesota: Program Usage: Over 50% of Somali households receive food stamps, and nearly 75% utilize Medicaid. Cash Assistance: 27% of Somali households use cash welfare, including TANF and SSI. Longevity: Even after 10 years of residency, welfare consumption rates remain high and only marginally lower than newly arrived Somali households Mexicans "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some I assume are good people." I'll agree the "some" was too far. If he had said, MOST then I see no issue here. Very fine on both sides. Regarding renting or not renting to blacks I don't know the details, they are likely different then what MSM posits. Also, if some Haitians were eating cats and dogs it's simply true, although not a nice thing to say. I don't doubt that if we had Ukrainian/white immigrants sucking money out of the govt disproportionately or eating cats and dogs he'd be afraid to mention it lol. Also, Muslims are a religion, not a race. Many westerners are finding them incompatible with their societies. Many lefties have been harping on this for years. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher. Hope this helps!

My son started at 3, he's 5, if he sticks with it I'll finally get to see what my genes can do! He's done 10b on TR with some cheating, like using bolt holes, done 5.9 clean. Its fun to watch because he locks off half the moves at his waist, sometimes has to smear the wall with both feet to reach the next hold. I have him hang boarding a couple times a week, I give him one dollar for 4x 10 second max hangs, he's saving for the switch2. He did his first real pull up a few months ago, which earned him 5 dollars, lol. I got into dirt biking starting 2016, another super fun option. Was doing it 20-30 times a year for awhile, totally wrecks you if you're pushing it. I wore a heart rate monitor once and averaged 155 bpm over 3 hours non stop on one of my regular trails. My climbing didn't go down at all though. I'd do a quick hang board workout beforehand usually, then take 2 days off after. Don't sleep on dirt biking if you have trails in the area, great old guy sport with some actual thrills, plus it's fun and you get a great workout. Two of the guys I ride with are 65 and 72, they're a bit slower but still rip!

Cool, that's a very good level, especially if you started as an adult and are larger than the typical climber. Funny you mention pushing, the only non climbing workout I do is one set of 20 push ups after climbing, 1 set 10 squats with just 100 lbs, and sometimes some core max strength stuff. I do dirt bike 10x a year, which torches my whole body when I do it. Just won the local utah bouldering competition in the masters category (45+) last october. 2nd place had just redpointed a 14c.

An idea for the weight lifters here. Rock climbing gyms have become mainstream. I've been doing it since 97'. Increasingly I see weight lifters in the gym, some meat head types too. They tell me they use it for one of their upper body days at least once a week/finger strengthening. It works everything well from the knee up but mostly upper body. Give it a try, it has the added bonus of being a lot of fun vs boring rep counting. Go have fun, get a great upper body workout, climbing gyms are very safe and offer all kinds of instruction if you want it. One of my current partners was a full on meat heat 6 foot 230 5% body fat. He's quit lifting and focuses on climbing, he's working hard to lose all his muscle, he's down to 195. However, all you really need is a chalk bag, chalk and shoes. Then go bouldering. You'll thank me later. You'll find your fingers are super weak, the weak link, stick with it and you'll make huge progress your first few years, once a week is enough, twice a week is even optimal if you're older. I rarely lift but can do a one arm pull up just from climbing. Also can hold a front lever and do a flag pole. This will give you an idea what bouldering is like. However, this guys an ex pro. What you start out on will appear like a ladder.

There's a book I believe gets to the heart (left vs right brain) of the matter. The Master and his Emissary. Iq's a thing however left vs right brain ways of experiencing the world and analytical vs gestalt like thinking is very different.

I’m no lawyer. I know it happened. Since your curious The elementary school was in bountiful Utah. The year was 92’ iirc 93’ latest. He was either 7th grade or the summer between 7/8th. The facility was for Davis county and called moweda. The gang member was Billy tahandan (sp?)from Ogden Utah. smoking citations were given out to those underage all the time.

Yes, 100% sure. I know this person very well. He got jacked and starting boxing soon after and a lot of men most of them much bigger than him ended up paying dearly for the fire that was lit during that time. It gets weirder, he was locked up again a few years later and the gang member was his room mate again, being held temporarily before being tried as an adult. What are the odds? Temporary holding place with 30 rooms. He also had an out of body experience while being beaten … floating over the scene near the ceiling. Coming to untied crying with the assailants staring wide eyed and nobody quite knowing what just happened. All said it’s a long story, I stuck with the facts and a simple story to keep it short but not that interesting. it happened in 92’ in Davis county Utah at moweda.

Just for the record assuming what's supposed to said here is something like Pretti's death was unnecessary and part of the problem is the particular ICE agents involved. I agree. Strategically, politically, that is, without what's true being foremost, you may be correct is your prediction, I don't know or know how to know. As an aside, I do have a hard time investing, yet do pretty well somehow. Had to change circle of competence to circle of psychology before my returns improved, after 7 years of practice. I do find all the thinking going on here interesting. There's been a few that have more or less agreed with you as well. I have a quick story, a good friend told me. Maybe you and others can chime in on why the following happened. The end result in this case being the hog tying with sheets and beating of a juvenile delinquent as opposed to bullets entering Pretti's back. 7th grader smokes a cigarette on a playground at 6pm, neighbors see him, call police, police come and give him a smoking citation. 7th grader goes to court, judge says that'll be 25$ fine and 10 hours community service. Mother of 7th grader stands up and tells judge that her son is out of control and does things like come home later than he says he will. Judge orders 7th grader to be locked up for 10 days. Lockup facility is overcrowded, there are 3 per cell vs 2, 7th graders room mates out weigh him by 50 lbs each. One is in for stabbing a rival gang member, next stop, long term lock up. Another is in for burning his parents house down, next stop, long term mental institution. During the first night, gang member directs mental patient to help him hog tie 7th grader with sheets and gag him. Gang member and mental patient beat 7th grader for half an hour, repeats night 2 and 3. Gang member leaves. The end. Why did the 7th grader get beaten?

For you 4 and 5 total 100% weighting. Steel manning your position if I understand it correctly. Occam’s razor gives you total certitude. Others would have 100% certitude if they were as competent brandishing Occam’s razor as you are. Others make excuses because the final cause was bullets in the back therefore this is the reason for death.