bebotalk

Even so, Homer has some admirable qualities, as in devotion to his family. But then I guess butting in and claiming to be wise and assigning blame without seeing the bigger picture is a good trait? I guess deliberation hurts your brain. I'll leave you to assign blame to me since we all need to adhere to your perceptions and worldviews.

I guess we have different upbringings. you were raised spoilt and boisterous. I was raised respectfully and not to be pushy. And that people have free will, and I dn't need to act on every random impulse I feel. if I violate the tenets of your church in opposing you or merely daring to suggest that people aren't fearful of you and it's retarded to assume such, so be it.

And you look stupid in that you don't know rudimentary English words. I imagine this to be you. If you're wise, then you keep on projecting your inner state. It's pretty obvious, nay self-evident, that your internal psychology is at play here. You do comically think everybody fears you - you obviously think/feel things and assume it's true. Mr. expert life/social skills/wisdom.

printing money has the potential to increase inflation. even if money isn't physical or tangible, it still has to be accounted for.

yes, one can forgive. but then if one commits to another, then dont' cheat. there shouldn't be any abrogated responsibility attached.

Seems you learnt this attitude from your temple. Well nobody has to care about your views. you don't regulate anybody. it's funny how others adhere to that and you don't. people aren't singularly morose. that's a belief you concocted in your head and project like an angsty teenager. you also don't get that your spiritual beliefs don't align with reality. so if you killed your neigbhour's children, would you still expect them to respect you? so according to you, there is never any enmity in life. ever. wow, spoilt and "enlightened". it's you are selective, imposing and angsty over normal human behaviour. maybe if you don't want beef, don't assume that your views must be heeded or taken as primary all the time. i know that your temple as a youth probably hated tact or thought selection, but still. I'm amused me point this out triggers you, since apparently it's never been human to realise we're not owed anything and we all must be viewed positively no matter what. i guess you'll come at me again when I post something not to your subjective liking. I'll make a note not to care and not engage in any "discussions". For a "wise man" your perceptions aren't wise, and they're frankly quite splintered and selectively applied. i guess your temple told you everybody has t fear you...lol. not how most people move, but then yes, your mental constructs "win".

i don't get nor agree with the analogy. Not all sexual exploration has to be in person. porn is fine, if it's used as a way to express one's sexuality or just relieve horniness. yes, it can be addictive in part, but not when used responsibly.

I'm not here for friendship, and you grossly overstate the "effect" this has on me. It's also "happiness", you idiot. You don't get the right to invent your own version of English! You're just some random person online whom I don't nor want to know. And who gets highly triggered at normal human conduct. humans are not always erudite. it's a simple fact, Mr. wise man. you're not wise at all. You get internally triggered over who is trite or not. Why apportion basic human emotions or who can express what? we're all free. if that offends you, then you think like Hitler. This is you - "I don't like him, so I want to STOP HIM from expressing publicly the full range of normal human states!! cos I RULE PEOPLE!!"" cool, brother. i don't seek to "rule" anybody. I like being easy going with balanced social skills and reactions.

Is this what the superpower of the world has to offer? An old and possibly senile man? An old, fat, orange-haired, and criminally-charged man?

Your points don't follow any representation of English. Good communication is stating things in ways people understand. It's not enough to be an overly unique edgelord.

As a rule of fiscal policy, any spending must be accounted for by taxation or borrowing. Say everybody in the USA got $17k a year from the federal government. How is this costed? Would it mean more personal taxation? But then this would erode the UBI benefit. Is it higher business taxes? What if corporate interests whine? What if businesses leave to go elsewhere as it would make the US less competitive? The national debt is already high. So if it's funded by borrowing, what then? More national debt, which isn't good. 17k for 300m people is a LOT of money. Would it come from the defence budget? Some argue it should. But it won't. The USA's position as a superpower and in a new Cold War with Russia means that cutting defence spending is imprudent right now. UBI would have more traction if it had a sound macroeconomic or fiscal basis. It seems at this point it's just people saying it can help the poor without seeing the fine details. It's said by idealistic uber-liberals without realising the mechanics of it. There is less need for a UBI in European countries that have solid welfare states.

There are already avenues for entrepreneurship. Many countries offer grants or low cost loans for this. The USA at least has a pretty thin welfare state. If anything, it would work there more than anything else.

There already is a welfare state. Would the UBI replace this? Would existing benefits eat out of the UBI total? Would rich people get it? yes, they're citizens too, But they clearly don't need it as much. Would it raise overall taxation? If a person chooses not to work, this means a weaker economy. Well, certainly if many choose to do this. Why then should the masses subsidise their lifestyles to do nothing and "live for their passions"? It's a nice idea, but the details haven't been fully thought out iimho.

upsides - place to discuss stuff i don't in real life downsides - people with bad social skills/awareness playing favourites on who can discuss stuff. Or who assume others are as unhappy and morose as they are, or who project a weird inner worldview onto others. and then preach how smart they are but don't wish to see the blind spots.

Being scared of others needlessly is being clinically paranoid.

The USA allows billionaires to own massive ranches, but then has a housing crisis. There is enough room to build houses, and protect the environment, Most conservation areas are far away from urban places as it stands, and there is Alaska which is undeveloped due to its Arctic location. Re-zoning, identification of prime locations for new towns/cities, and incentives to construction companies can help in building more homes.

Coaches charge a lot since they offer specialised services. they may have specialised skills that few others offer, or can offer.

It's my genuine view that most pretty women are just dark by nature. So I avoid them. They have no incentive to be good. So I avoid them. I don't engage them in social settings. I don't need to, and even I do, I'm civil and just ignore them. People generally only have to act in ways that they need to in given scenarios. And all human beings hold the right to defend themselves - whether physically, emotionally, etc. So given the inherent nature of pretty women, I take my time to avert them, since I know how things progress and will unfold. As I said above, human psychology will favour bonds and looks. Pretty women of course know and experience this - so they will take their time to exploit this accordingly. I can't blame them for it, though I can steer clear of such. It's like being in a forest with wolves around. They cannot help being predators, so once has to take precautions in that scenario. What's more is that I'm quite reserved in real life. I'm not loud or crazy, and just sit and do my own thing. It's not that I lack confidence. I am often quite ballsy in defending myself and for the most part, am comfortable in who I am and my strengths and weaknesses. However, it's often pretty women who pick up on this, and then use their social power to tell others to fuck me around. So for that, I despise them all. they clearly lack the sense not to avoid anybody they don't feel comfortable around, and lack the contrition to realise they cannot "win" every social interaction. I see no reason to change who I am, and not for others petty comforts. Such is life. We don't get everything we want and the world isn't a utopia. Pretty women are blinded to this reality, and they are too egocentric to realise and embrace it. I bet I'm more assured in myself than the masses of hotties out there. If I find a person too loud, or cocky, or too funny (as in they make jokes in inappropriate times), I avoid them. They are being who they are. I don't need to engage with them, and neither them with me. It is what it is. But nooo. Pretties have to "force" people to their whims. The world MUST conform to the views pretties hold. If pretty women are disliked, they bring it on themselves. They probably act out and then don't realise that others are responding to their own negativities. Life is reciprocal. What we give out is often what we get back. If a person dresses scruffily and stinks like shit, they'd be avoided. It's on that person then to realise they are repelling others, or they don't care then recognise the consequences of their acts. Yes, I can see this is an ugly attitude to hold. I'm not generally a prejudiced person, and don't associate with racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, etc. people. But my view is a defensive one. I seldom ever see pretty women not use their societally-derived outlook in a good way. it's also about cliques, and using said power in a harsh manner, and it's tiring. So yes, I do assume that every attractive woman I meet is a bitch to her core. I am wary of them in workplaces, since they won't act professionally but then use their derived mental state to act up. I believe as humans, we're kind of shaped and set in early tweenhood. If a girl who is pretty at that age realises she has this social setting due to her looks, she'd seldom give it up, since she has no incentive to. There are very few who hold the moral sense, magnanimity, wisdom, or nobleness to do that. And since one cannot blame them for such, I avoid them. I don't think they can manage people effectively. They will invariably play favourites, be unprofessional, and not see a person under their command or care. They would act up and get away with it due to their looks. I would argue it's pretty women who bring any hate on themselves. Many of them are judgmental asf, mainly due to the reasons I've cited. So others act accordingly. They also believe, due to socialisation, that their views and beliefs are the most important in any setting. They also are hypocrites. They talk about being "nice" but seldom ever adhere to it. Most things they say are either for show, things they believe as ideals but don't employ, or things to promote a positive and charitable air that they don't really adhere to. Yes, I would further admit that I'm prejudiced in this regard. Like you, I presume, I'm black. We both know the issues our people - for want of a term - have faced. I don't know about you, but most black people I know of course oppose bigotry, but then we realise that there will always be some out there who have darker thoughts or views. It may seem pessimistic, but such is life. There are plenty of blacks who are homophobic, as are other non-whites, due to religious reasons for instance. I've come to realise that being imperfect is normal, and we can only really strive towards an ideal. I'd say I try my best to be good to all I encounter, and few who know me well would say I'm a malevolent or vicious person. Though whilst I oppose most bigotry, I do admit that based on elemental social dynamics, I find conventionally attractive women act scummy and thus I don't tolerate them highly. Yes, they are nice to look at and we're all innately horny. But there is more to life than sex. I've often found that sex with 5s or 6s can be as good as with 10s. And dating is about connection and not about seeking partners as trophies. That's a very immature means to approach dating, IMHO. I genuinely don't see any group as better than another. Hence why I refuse to look up to pretty women. If others wish to be hypocritical in how they engage such, so be it. I cannot control them. But it's something I genuinely believe in and do my best to follow. I believe many have prejudices. And often a large number would justify this by saying it's "not as bad" as other prejudices. For instance, a person might dislike ugly people or short people but then say it's not as bad as racism because uglies or shorties haven't been enslaved or considered second-class citizens. Or they may oppose sexism or despise ginger-haired people, again for reasons of past marginalisation. This rationale seems dim IMHO, since bigotry is wrong not because of past cases of systemic oppression but it's unkind. I believe people need to more honest and admit they have prejudices, and not assume they are all good. Good and bad in people are on a spectrum. Many "good" people often act out sometimes. Many "bad" people show charity. It's as if a crime boss or warlord isn't kind to his followers. It's not as if some charity worker or teacher who helps the disadvantaged doesn't call people a cu** due to anger or via a random hostile urge. If my view makes me "bad" in some people's eyes, so be it. I'm not a Christian (well I used to be) but then the Lord Himself said that we're all sinners. they should look at their own negative views before they claim sainthood. So until a miracle proves me wrong, I will assume that every attractive woman I encounter has dark intent, is spoilt, and will be a bully. She'd have to literally turn water into wine or feed a mass of people with loaves and fish to prove me wrong. For what it's worth, I don't know you. So if you feel hurt by this or other threads I've posted, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to attack you specifically. But I am honestly wary of conventionally hot women.

I disagree. It's worse in pretty women. It's mainly since women are the gatekeepers of sex. This is a redpill talking point, however it's one of the few things they are correct on. Men typically approach women for courting, dating and sex. Despite gender equality these days, a lot of Western women feel uncomfortable in approaching men. It's still not even agreed that women should pay for dates or not. So as men approach and appeal to women, then women hold this power. This therefore leads to women exerting social power, which further leads to their darker natures. I do not despise women at all. I don't associate with misogynistic men and call out any misogyny in my presence. However, I know root human dynamics, and sex is an important part of our nature. Even in societies that are not sex-positive, it is such, since humans are humans. People may be more open about sex in the USA, UK or Germany vis a vis Iran, Saudi Arabia or Vietnam, but it's not as if Iranians, Saudis or Vietnamese never get horn nor seek out relationships, or don't value beauty. People who say human nature doesn't exist are fools - if that were the cause then it's been noted in many cultures of disparate origins and locations that a mix of looks and status have been prime attractants. This has been true since ancient times. If we read texts from Ancient Rome or Greece, or even folk tales and stories from Africa, the Americas, India, etc. we see strong commonalities on what people have traditionally valued. The redpill is cringe and people like Fresh and Fit and the Tates have declined in prominence somewhat, but they do have some base points correct. Looks and status do matter, and men have and still do, and most likely will in the future, appeal to women for sex and relationships. Pretty women know this - and they know they can act as they can since men will fawn over them. So then they act like bullies, and don't need to care. People who hold power can use it badly. So then I recognise this and avoid them. They use this power in practically every social situation. It makes things toxic. What's more is that it's often spiritual people who are ignorant to this. They either live in bubbles or are lying and being disingenuous. Yes, we should be nice. I agree. it is something that, perhaps, most people aspire to. Though it is an ideal, and not a perfect thing. And something that we seldom execute perfectly. Most people lie, even if it's white lies, and we often condemn lying. People who hold power can be checked. We have labour laws, and arguably laws in general, to stop those with power abusing it. I don't have an issue with men in power. Why should I? They don't harm me. Because somebody has financial power, it doesn't mean they necessarily will abuse it. Not all forms of power are of equal weight and value. Financially powerful people often own businesses and provide people with work. Pretty women alone don't. One cannot equate forms of power. The #metoo movement was there to call out powerful entities in terms of sexual abuse. There is no anti-hot women movement, which I admit would be weird. A parent has power over a young child. that's not the same as other forms of power. I don't agree with your equating of forms of power. It's well-recognised in sociology at least that power is multi-faceted.

But all groups and societies have some degree of common values. And yes, everybody is not equal in the strict sense. Though I believe we're equal in value. if that upsets pretties, so be it.

It's human nature to be somewhat short-termist. However, I think most people accept the need for effort in climate change. Or to tackle social issues such as discrimination.

Generally, police are supposed to speak to suspects in good faith and not use techniques to trap them.

1 - How i do it is recognise that the reward is worth the "pain". 2 - I used to be timid, but then I literally hardened my mind. this sounds weird, but sometimes I used to actually hit myself to improve my mentality. It worked somewhat, because I realised that discomfort can embolden and it's part of life. It's about being steady in any situation since we can't control every situation. We can value ease or dis-ease, of course, but then we're not guaranteed either in any moment. I learnt to just go head in and handle whatever happens as it happens, but with a strong enough mentality to overcome it.

It is viable in the sense that people need places to live. Though the thing affecting it would be house prices, but given the US's housing crisis I can't see house prices going down on average for a while yet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kmehta/2021/02/03/three-lessons-in-management-from-an-inner-city-school/?sh=5389da0a433d