bebotalk

lol. you're so wise and smart but realise I don't have an interest in engaging with you? Your brain operates in funny ways. I guess it's a temple upbringing. I find lots of temple people are bullies and lack integrity.

I'm not Danish, but in my countnry we have a similar vibe. https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-Danes-smile-at-strangers-on-the-street-or-smile-back-when-they-are-smiled-at-first#:~:text=Originally Answered%3A Why don't,or chat-up strangers unnecessarily. I found this by accident and I resonated with it. The concept seems cringe, imho. It's weird to just go into a public place and then smile at people. People one doesn't know. I'm not responsible for their happiness, nor they are for mine. And if people aren't bothering others, then they should be left alone. It's bordering on clinical paranoia if a person needs strangers to act warmly to feel safe. I guess it's just upbringing and culture, and I see where many of the Danish people commenting were coming from. I was always taught to respect strangers as being human, which means not harming them or fucking them over. I don't know them, so the extent of charity I can expect from them compared to acquaintances, friends or family is limited. If a stranger fell on the pavement and cut themselves, I'd call an ambulance for them if they were badly hurt. But I wouldn't invite them to my home, or even help clean them up if they were a family member or friend. I'm not knocking America, but the idea one must beam at strangers on a train, bus, plane, or shopping mall, seems very Waltons-esque, odd, and illogical. I wonder how common my view is, or not.

They should find new friends. away from you. Others don't exist to make your life more comfortable.

Unfortunately, humans are aggressive. War only stops when humans do.

Watch the news. Read reputable news website online.

Your temple trance is comical. Smiling at others is cringe. I'm sorry I offend you by exercising free will. maybe "force me physically" to accept your view. Mr. "wise and absolutely social". it's not absolutely social to use trances to engage others. humans have free will. you're so wise but it's not even entered your brain "Oh he's not responsive, let me move on!" your parochial Eastern ways aren't universal. Yes, smiling is cringe. if that makes me bad, so be it. i wasn't raised in some rural part of the USA or the Far East. I'd say people have a neutral stance to others. without any real evidence, we don't assume they're hostile or friendly. But find somebody else to lecture to. you can stick by your cultural norms, and I'll stick by mine which are reinforced by other countries in Europe such as Denmark as I stated.

Ah, so you have no children? grand. I said lecture to them. I'm sorry I'm so baaaaad at exercising human free will. Your temple isn't all of life there are different views in life. Some people are vegans, others are Christians, and others are Muslim. You seem to take a thought in your head and have a blanket projection on all. this is problematic as there are different thoughts. And don't say that humans are naturally blanketed. it's not "natural" for me or others I know. We're humans too. Very few actions are truly universal in our species. Not even language, walking, talking, etc. are. Unfortunately, some are born mute or cannot hear, for instance. Spiritual people are cowardly and love to plot. Maybe control your brains to tell ALL what your guru told you. but you won't. Maybe you're in some creepy trance or something. So yes, smiling is cringe.

Achieve and create are two different things. To achieve means to gain something via work, such as a goal or a prize. To create means to make something. It's not a matter of complexity or simplicity. It's just these words aren't synonyms. The AI chat is right - they are not exact replacements for similar words.

linguistically speaking, no language is superior to another.

What I meant was taking steps to resolve the defined problem. Say a person has an ant problem in their garden. They'd see where the ants are coming from. Or remove plants that attract ants. Or move any precious plants to a place where ants can't get to them. Or find a way to exterminate the ants, if needs be. Once a problem is defined, it's about taking as many steps as possible to resolve it or at least mitigate it.

Because I choose not to smile at them. I have no obligation to do so. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of. There also isn't a God, and tell-your kids lectures, not random strangers. People are nice based on humanity. I am such. It's how I was raised. in your temple you were told to impose on others. I wasn't. A person is't bad if they don't adhere to your impositions. That's life. We have smiles to communicate with others, as we do with all facial expressions. I'm nice to people off the bat provided they no reason not to. I don't believe we should be antangonistic for no reason.

As a general rule, it's about analysing the problem, solving it, and getting points to resolve it.

No, i think it's cringe. It's funny how you presume my meaning. Can you read my mind? Or do spiritualists not have good reading comprehension nad engagement in life overall? It's not always healthy to have firm views on people from an initial interaction. People have depth and one cannot know the entirety of own's being and motives. That smiley person might be a pain or problem years down the line. Or they may be initially benevolent but things take a dark turn. I think smiling at strangers is cringe since strangers are people but they're not friends. and why smile at somebody one doesn't know and may not see ever again? I just prefer to be alone in public and only be bothered if I am bothering others. That's my view and I don't give a fuck who dislikes it. It's funny how spiritualists cannot conceive of another view. or just say "alright mate!" and move on and live their own lives when presented with another view. It's like I said that "Hitler was right, we should re-implement the Final Solution" or something else that grave. And no, I don't actually believe that. I doubt Hitler would like somebody like me as it stands. It's annoying to clarify things for some dumbfuck who doesn't get subtext.

As I've said in this thread, their conduct. And nobody has to respect them. i don't respect anybody a prior due to their looks. if they are dark of heart, others will respond. if that bothers you, then there is no absolute association with anybody. Doesn't matter who is "valued" in society or life. Rich people are valued, so what? nobody has to engage with them.

So she recognises that most hot women are not good people. THere IS hope then.

Most pretty women aren't good people. it's just a fact. So then others don't have to respond to them. this is root human conduct. it's not about people "demanding" good conduct. Life is give and take.

so then build a lifestyle that most people don't lead as it's reserved often for people of excess wealth? how does this help a guy in his 20s who has a university degree, works in a junior position in a national office of a global firm, and earns 30k a year? and has hot co-workers on a similar level to him?

it's cringe. it's needless. that's just my view. there is another view of life vis a vis the spiritualist mode

i'm merely stating what is common. common things aren't bad. and it's my opinion. as you have a right to state yours, I can state mine.

i don't care if i potentially seem like a "square". i don't think going to uni for fun is a valid reason. as uni is funded by the public purse, doesn't seem right IMHO. yes, hanging out is a significant facet of the experience but not the purpose of it.

All life on Earth has to work to gain sustenance. Humans are no different. The only thing that is a factor is how we do it. We've gone from being hunter-gatherers to the 21st century doing this.

I'm merely stating a fact. to ecommunicate effectively, it's about stating things in plain and comprehensible terms. I'm sorry me merely stating a fact bothers you. People can do as tey please here, provided it's within the rules/scope of the forum. You tend to live in your head a lot and project. it's probably some middle-eastern moral to do such,

Most people have cursory knowledge.

This is boring. Two people who are shocked at a human realisation/fact. but then will then do/say the opposite. Just don't limit what I post here. maybe look into y0ourselvves why that bothers you, or taking an L bothers you. but I doubt you will, since your inner psychology wants to be on top at all times. that's on you.... Just both leave me the f alone from this point. but you won't, since you "need" to engage with people, even if they're randomers online and not close blood. loi. non-adults.

Artists can represent things that are known, or different takes on things that are known. Philosophers look at real life phenomenon and analyse it from various angles. I don't think they take unknown things and make them known. It's not like science, which itself derived from philosophy. Science has firm conclusions. Philosophy doesn't. Nobody can say that moral subjectivism is more correct than moral objectivism. Or whether God exists.