bebotalk

Yes, women do gatekeep sex. It's a truth, observable in all cultures. Being spiritual shouldn't blind you to reality. Women and men are socialised differently. Again, this is observable in all cultures. Prove me wrong then. Since apparently basic facts of humanity are troublesome to you. lool

In some countries I've lived in and visited, it was the norm to accept police take bribes. Or even give them in given circumstances. It was also accepted that state services would be slow, or they would purposely cut corners. Nepotism was also tolerated, and overall there was a lack of adherence to rigorous and scrupulous standards. It doesn't mean people didn't work hard. It's just there was an accepted "cutting corners" culture, and whilst people criticised it they would realise that it's way too ingrained in everyday life to change.

Societal changes and dynamics have created a lost generation. Repillers need something to feel more masculine. And then come up with a theory that money leads to dating success, when plenty of poor people get dates - and mostly from women of a similar socio-economic status. Incels are lost in they have neurodiversity issues, or they they were not taught basic social norms or dynamics and act out. MGTOW are also lost, and probably find they dont' "fit" in the modern world.

How many nuclear accidents have occurred in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, the UK or China? Three Mile Island happened due to human error also. Using Fukushima, which was a mix of human error, bad maintenance practices, and an earthquake/tsunami, cannot be used to discourage all nuclear power. One cannot use an exception to disprove a phenomenon. Much of the opposition to nuclear power is based on emotiveness more than logic. People are fearful of nuclear things given its radioactive power, which is understandable. But the reality is that for the very most part, it's safe. Anti-nuclear people miss the nuance in this case.

It's not a matter of being hardworking or not, or valuing laziness. Cultures that aren't as fastidious are more prone to corruption, from my experience.

Pretty women can't manage - i had two pretty bosses who were by far the worst. One acted like i was bothering her merely when I asked for assistance, the other in a performance appraisal spent the time mocking my character. Pretty women have forever literally just walked into me in the street or uni or anywhere. they literally think they own the place. They've knocked food out of my hand at fast food places, made me drop books in libraries, poked me in the temple and eyes with their umbrellas whilst raining, and then they get "annoyed" or "hurt" when they get called out for said conduct. this proves they are SCUM. SCUM assault others for kicks, or make people waste food for nothing since I'm not eating food I bought that's fallen on the ground, and then recklessly commit ASSAULT since they're too dim and retarded to tilt their umbrellas or watch where they are walking. Pretty women scheme and plot, and all because they've been spoilt asf since they were young. that' the formative point, and where this shit all starts. Pretty women are bullies in everyday life. so in the workplace, that gets ramped up TENFOLD!!

Yes. Societal dynamics vis a vis good-looking men differ. yes, they can be looked up to regarding looks, but then men and women are treated differently. Women gatekeep sex, so women are afforded. and being pretty is another avenue in their darkness.

Work is whatever one makes of it, socially at the least. People can make genuine friends, or just speak to them and go home and not mix with them other than in work. Your first sentence seems quite absolutist. Their looks make them scummy human beings. And i hold the right to defend myself from them.

No. I refuse to look up to women who are attractive. why must I? "society" says we're all equal. so then "society" shouldn't "force" people to view them positively or as "better". For much, nay all of my life, I'm tired of their shenanigans. If I choose not to look up to them, why not? It's my choice. it's then the fault of "society" for being two-faced and dishonest!

Not all incels are shy or lack confidence. This advice won't help all incels.

is it rude to do so? is it bad if i don't care? more often than not, it's people who are from India who have very bad English, or don't even ask what they're about or what they're offering. actually, i don't care if it's rude. they're the one offering the service, so they should say "hello Mr. x, my name y is and i am from z company". their firm needs sales, after all.

India is a society rooted in degradation and not caring about the masses. The recent Hindu supremacy that's emergent is telling of this longstanding cultural trend.

Hundreds of millions live in absolute poverty. but then launching space rockets is good for the national ego.

Seriously, how did this even become a debate? It's been the norm for literally millennia to value sexual chastity or experience in partners. If people are offended that others will turn them down for having a high bodycount, then they need to toughen up a bit. They're lucky they live in a time where having a high bodycount isn't a widespread stigma.

I'd argue there will always be conspiracy theories.

Depends on the beliefs. Is it possible to be a Christian and a Muslim? I don't see how. If one eats bacon, then Jesus never condemned it. But eating pork is condemned in the Quran. So which view wins out?

The US pullout of Afghanistan was achieved via international law. Maybe educate yourself before waffling nonsense lol.

Conspiracy theories arise since people distrust power. they have always been there. Most people who believe in them do so due to ego, or wanting tobe viewed as "more attuned to reality", as much as a legitimate suspicion of authority.

Humans are aggressive. War happens. It could be argued that the defence industry is a boon and not a hindrance. Blame human nature.

Seems the detractors of this bodycount ideal are those whose feelings are hurt, especially if they get turned down for having a high bodycount. And? who really gives a fuck? not everybody has to value open sex. That is part of the sex positivity ideal - in that ALL forms of sexual expression are valued and celebrated, provided they are consensual. People need to be less sensitive and accepting of others' opinions and values. If some man or women who has fucked 100 people isn't suitable for another who desires chasteness, so be it. Don't get in a fret and find somebody of a suitable lifestyle or value system.

For the best part of two centuries, most political discourse has been a battle between pro-free market and pro-collectivisation. Whilst various beliefs can be seen as more complex than that, it is something that generally still holds. To say that dictators cannot be left or right is false. Autocracy isn't a left or right ideal. Whilst Stalin and Hitler were both autocrats, their ideologies were clear. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and Hitler was a racial supremacist fascist. Both the USSR and Germany under their rules were totalitarian, however they had differing ideological means and ends. Stalin wasn't a fascist and didn't care much about racial hierarchy. Hitler definitely did. In the world today, Xi and Kim are communists, though China is somewhat "freer" than North Korea. Putin is a dictator, despite his "elections". He's neither a fascist nor a communist, but clearly is a Russian nationalist. Left and right aren't perfect labels, that can capture all ideologies. But as long as capitalism is the dominant economic system, there will be detractors to it, so left and right are still valid.

Doesn't the Torah say homosexuality is a sin? I guess they're "based" for undermining their own religion. Though the standard comeback is "it was written by men millennia ago!!" Who though can say what is true or not in any holy text? People need to stop abusing texts, merely since they see a given facet of it as an inconvenience. If one has an open mind towards it being a mere reflection of moral/cultural biases at the time of writing, then an open mind to it being the true values of God is equal in worth. Nobody can say that either position is "better" than the other.

It's a stupid "debate". People have legitimate reasons for caring about it. Or not, in whichever case. Chasity has been a value held in many cultures for centuries if not millennia. It should be perfectly legitimate to care about it or not. I'm surprised really that people haven't got that chastity has been a prized value in Western culture. Contemporary sex-positivity is really an aberration of the longstanding norm.

The national ethos of countries can change over time. America today isn't exterminating native Americans based on Manifest Destiny. Britain isn't colonising India or Africa. If anything, many former colonial countries oppose nation-building due to this historic backdrop. Israel's allies are Western countries since a secondary effect of Israel's founding was a "safe" country in the Middle East. Whilst Saudi Arabia is a US ally, it's not democratic. Israel is a Jewish state but it is a "point" country in the region for the West.

NATO operates via the North Atlantic Treaty. It thus is, by design and definition, international law. So is the new NAFTA he signed. So is the European Union. So is the UN, WTO, or any manner of extradition treaties for instance existing between states. Your view here is confused. With respect, what is the point you and Leo are trying to convey? Yes, humans are imperfect. Laws aren't always followed. By this logic, then all national civil and criminal law should end because humans are imperfect actors. Not all countries follow international law fully. And? Again, what is the point? Sovereign states generally have relations with each other, and international law is the mechanism by which this is done. The USA contributes to NATO out of its own self-interest. And this done via a treaty is signed with other countries in 1949, and which is regulated by standing international law practices. Trump calling out other NATO members for not paying their fair share was him stating that his country was abiding by a treaty his predecessor Truman signed in good faith. Any treaty between states is by design within the bounds of international law. Stating points like "well in 50 years time" is odd, since it's doubtful unless there is a massive shift in human nature or mass genetic engineering conducted in the future, imperfect actors would exist. The UN sanctions placed on Russia are part of international law. As were sanctions placed on South Africa. The division of North and South Korea that still exists is part of international law, as was Brexit. If Russia and Ukraine call a ceasefire or negotiate a settlement, that would be part of international law by definition. So does international law exist or not? It clearly does. And where else do militaries gain instructions or orders from? it's politicians. Again, both of you are making ill-informed points