Viking

The issue is that "offensive" is subjective. A principal in an elementary school could say that teachers shouldn't tell children that there are more than 2 genders in order to not confuse them and then that principal could get cancelled and replaced. He didn't intend to say anything wrong, he just cared about the children, yet some teachers could find that "offensive". I think people who fight for free speech want to avoid edge cases like this. I agree that some just want to say offensive things, but not all.

Saying "retarded" without consequence is the same free speech

Both have peaks and valleys. The lowest point of sex isn't better than the peak of masturbation, but masturbation is a simulation of sex afterall. After a while of masturbation without sex it feels empty.

Welcome to the middle east. If you claim to be stage yellow the solution is to incorporate those aspects and talk to them on the same level. Don't show any feminine qualities. If you're unable to do it you're stuck in green.

Try taking a free online course in programming and see if you like it. Who knows, maybe along with making money you will enjoy it.

Interesting. So you're saying by sharing, women express their yin energy? Their passive energy?

Interesting point, it may be true that my question asking is a way to express that energy. So in continuation of this energy expression lol - why do men then express emotions with solution oriented expression of emotion yet women with just stopping at the problem and sharing only it?

@NoSelfSelf i am a very emotionally supportive person. The reason i ask these questions is to provide better emotional support by understanding women better. Regarding what you said, it a bit contradicts the problem i talked about, how are women everchanging if they keep having the same issues because they don't solve them? Gets them rather stuck and not changing.

It's a long discussed concept and I'm well aware if it but as a man it's difficult to wrap my head around it. If a negative emotion occurs, women want to share it, yet men want to solve it. Ultimately a balanced human should dabble in both sides, but I can understand at the core why do some women choose only the former - only sharing. Neglecting the solution entirely to their problems and only share about it, which leads to temporary relief, but since the problem hasn't been solved it keeps triggering them emotionally lowering their quality of life. Is it only when they're unconscious? And if they would be aware of the situation they would try to solve it? Btw I'm aware men also do this, but statistically less. Just a generalization. The point of the post is that i barely do it so I'm trying to understand the other side no matter its gender. My way of coping with negative emotions is sometimes addictive behavior but usually for matters which cannot be solved in the short or even medium term

sure, then the point is about the administration, the people who tell him what to do

I noticed i posted it in the wrong place, meant to post this in the politics forum

I think this is an important turning point - the pressure shifted from Israel to Hamas to end the war. Is it coincidental that this shift happens after the elections? Maybe now when biden is bound less by his voters he says what he really thinks?

Notice that when you say "If pleasure is truly the only thing that makes life worth living, then life starts to feel less significant or meaningful" You're not in the pleasure itself but *thinking* about pleasure. The lack of meaning lies in your perspective. Seeing the cup half empty. It technically can be true that humans are guided by pleasure, but you can also see it as being greatful that you can experience pleasure. Aren't we fortunate to be alive and be able to experience life? The issue is that you're trying to arrive at the "truth". But your emotions and the feeling of "meaning" don't care about truth. They care about the way you present the truth to yourself. Our emotions don't respond well to "objective" thoughts. And there is no such thing as an "objective" way to look at the world. That leaves us with the absolute freedom to choose how we see life, and since we have this radical freedom, we can choose to find the positive perspective which builds us. That said, it's not an easy thing to do and takes time and awareness of the negative perspective you choose to see things. To catch yourself overthinking and divert your attention to something else. Instead of thinking "life is less meaningful because life is only about pleasure", think "isn't it nice how i enjoyed seeing friends today?" If you don't manage to find those positive things you probably need to objectively improve your life, have relationships, life purpose, etc...

Taken from the official updated charter of Hamas, stating its objectives, link to it: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full "Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital." "Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit." If Hamas said they'll lay down arms they lied. If Hezbollah said they'll stop attacking Israel they lied. To think that it will be more difficult for Iran to recruit palestinians to fight for them if they had a state is naïve at best. If anything, it will most likely once they tasted success raise their motivation to take all of the land from the river to the sea, no matter if they have something to lose or not. None of them will rest until the entirety of Israel is palestine. They state this over and over again and they act on it. Anything else is lies. This is ideology. Not practicality. That's how it is in the middle east. Israel will be under an enormous threat given a palestinian state.

If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that a two state solution will bring peace. Palestine will be a state and have freedom, and Israel will be a state and be secure. The assumption here is that Iran does what it does to liberate the palestinian people, but the reality is they don't care about the palestinians. They see themselves as the higher race of muslims, way above the palestinians and all the rest. Proof of that is that they never do anything directly for the palestinians but only through their proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. All at the cost of palestinian lives. They only attack if they themselves get attacked. Iran wants to have power over the middle east and Israel stands in their way. There is absolutely no chance that hostility towards Israel would stop if Palestine has a state. Regarding the comparison to the UK and the US - for Israel it's not a matter of "just in case" as you said. The UK and the US are superpowers which could handle any revenge or retaliation. Israel doesn't have the luxury those countries had. Israel is a very small country geographically speaking, and 7th Oct proved that. If Israel would give the palestinians a state, Iran would destroy Israel in the following decade or cause severe losses and damage. What happened in the towns surrounding the Gaza strip, would happen in central cities in Israel like Tel Aviv with much higher casualties. I understand that from the palestinian perspective it doesn't seem that bad for what they have suffered and are still suffering, but I'm just explaining why the ethical thing for Israel is not go for a two state solution. Ethically speaking, self preservation is above anything else. That's why practically I think the solution which would be best both for Israel and the Palestinians is the handling of Iran first and foremost, and the slow investing in the quality of life of the palestinians, still under the Israeli defense suprevision.