Grumpy @ Grumpy @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

212

Joined

2 yr. ago

I did not victim blame. I wish logic and/or discrete mathematics is a requirement education in the world. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not trying to control her sexuality. I, in fact, said it's fine if she wants to do OF. So you have read me wrong. I pointed out people's inability to predict the future.

You have judged me for judging on things I didn't say. You smell of hypocrisy.

When you were little, did you parents teach you to look both ways before crossing the street? Even when you're at a stop sign or at a green light? Probably, since you're still alive. Why did they do that? You'd be in the right. If a car hit you, you'd be the victim, 100%. But you do that anyway because being right or being the victim is completely irrelevant. It's not about who gets the blame. It's about what gives you the best outcome. You looking both ways before crossing the street has the best outcome for you. It doesn't matter if you're right if you're fucking dead.

If she wanted the best outcome of staying as a teacher, she shouldn't have done OF. This should be a very easy deductive logic people should be able to make given what is the current society.

This is not victim blaming. I lean quite far left, and this is one of the most insanely annoying thing I find about the left. Far too many only look about who's the victim and whose to blame. That shit is fucking stupidest outlook on life. It's a good goal to attain, a world without problem causing things. But unless utopia happens, you need to learn to figure out how the world works. Failure to do that simply means you're stupid. You might be a victim, but you're still stupid.

If you're an adult, you should learn to address the argument, not make ad hominem attacks.

No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn't consistent.

It would be: If she doesn't want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn't want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must've wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

Because you couldn't point out what was wrong, you decided to take a strawman? No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn't consistent.

It would be: If she doesn't want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn't want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must've wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

As a young teenager I did not care.

Were you a young teenage girl? Because you seem to completely lack understanding of teenage boys' psychology. There's absolutely no reason they would be angry at her for making them horny. That makes no sense at all.

I would agree with your other replier on this. Furthering that, I would say this is the teenage boys' attempt to challenge authority by undermining her authority with her open sexuality as a tool. They found a leverage to have power over her. And they're going to use it to the full extent. They're at a point in time of their growth where they find their social hierarchy. Almost every male mammal engages in this. They pick fights and they learn where they stand by winning and losing. And they want to get as high as possible. This explains the anger that you pointed out, because challenging authority and fighting is inherently similar emotion to anger.

What part am I wrong about? Her OF account has clearly affected her job as a teacher. The evidence of what I said is right there. You're in denial of facts of what has already occurred. If she didn't see this coming, she's stupid.

I don't care if you think people shouldn't be judgmental. You're being judgement of me right now. And I am of you right now. People always are, always have been and always will. That's how humans work. Your denial or calling it out as bad is irrelevant in your ability to plan for the future.

Edit: Let me be clear. I am not defending the judgmental. I am pointing out the lack of social understanding.

Humans are social creatures. We are affected direct and indirectly by other people whether you like it or not (unless you want to become a hikikomori).

The fact that other people give a shit about about someone making porn in their free time, should make you give a shit. This is irrelevant to whether you think they should give a shit or not. Your lack of ability to give a shit signals your lack of foresight into how this affects your life as well as lack of social skills. If she wants to be an OF model, and therefore chooses to do OF content, that's fine. If she wants to be a teacher and thinks she can do OF without consequence, she's stupid.

The embargo acts as an example to everyone else not to fuck with USA oil. Because if you do, they'll be super petty and make you miserable until the end of time.

Maybe he turned into a bear like in Baldur's Gate 3

There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.

Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don't consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.

My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.

Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.

Having said that, I don't believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.

Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we'll all be happier.

I feel like it's more rooted in racism than actually foods. Plenty of other cuisines have more fiber and more spices. Mexican isn't really special in its ingredients or it's preps.

Then why specific hate for mexican? I really can't come with any answer than racism.

Internet is weird. Some stereotypes and racism are easily accepted and considered funny.

I remember that now. Yeah, no idea why they said such at the beginning. It's not like masks were a new invention with covid. Asian countries regularly use mask with flu.

I'm Asian. So I could wear a mask and not get the stink eye even before covid.

Things that should become obviously acceptable often doesn't seem to do so due to some sort of cultural acceptance.

Like in regions most susceptible to malaria, they hate mosquito nets. Yet if I lived there, I'd mosquito net everything even without malaria!

What is the specifics of the lie that they said?

Covid has reached a ubiquitous state where it's a constant presence around us. Similar to how cold and flu virus are. So in a sense, the high concern and detailed tracking is over. And we must simply accept that there is one more virus as part of our lives. It's not over in the sense that it's gone. That certainly will never be now.

Not sure who these foolishly brave Americans are who think they can beat an elephant and a grizzly bear bare handed.