Why is his face contracted like the top of an onion? He doesn’t look like he wants to be there, or take the whole religion thing seriously. Lol.
removed by mod
Thanks!
Yes, because cameras are cheaper.
That’s actually pretty cool!
You can use that rationale to justify any invasion against a weaker nation. All it takes is the lack of morality to justify horrific crimes. Your logic falls flat on its face in cases where force and coercion end up having the opposite effect than your stated goal. Countries in the Middle East are finding themselves more and more inclined to do business with China in times of increased threats and sanctions from the US. The “Great Satan” is hated by the population exactly because of the “diplomacy” that you advocate for. An increased resentment among the population influences politics, which drives these countries closer to enemies to the US.
if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.
So if Zionist government officials don’t steal taxpayer money in order to fund their Zionist invasion of the Middle East, Israel will kill more people. So Israel must be supported in order to kill less people. Nice logic.
A cornered rat can only do so much before it gets exhausted. It’s better to corner a rat and have it rage rather than pouring in all its cousins to make it feel safer in order to pacify it.
I have to point out that your “diplomacy” perfectly aligns with the Zionist project, which does involve a genocide as has been documented time and time again.
I don’t like to attack the person besides the argument, but in this case I don’t think you deserve the benefit of the doubt because of your colossal lack of empathy and unwillingness to consider solutions that don’t involve supporting a full-scale invasion. What’s more disgusting than an overtly wicked individual is one who hides behind talks of nuance and who uses fancy deductions (with false premises) in order to put wool in front of people’s eyes.
You said in one of your other posts that every person who thinks that porn is bad is bad. So you think that I’m a bad person. It makes sense why you are not being very charitable.
Any psychiatrist who claims to diagnose porn addiction is engaging in malpractice. Porn addiction is not real according to sexual scientists.
Only substance abuse and gambling addiction have made it into DSM. But it is still widely understood that porn addiction is very much real. This is not denied, and is being treated, which is not something you are in a position to call malpractice. It is only a matter of time before porn addiction ends up in DSM as well, because it is a real wide-spread type of addiction.
The problem is religion and fake morality creating conflicts in people’s minds because they don’t realize that masturbation is fine and healthy.
This is not the issue, many people who suffer from porn addiction aren’t even religious. The problem is what I described in my earlier comment, which applies to addictions in general, not just porn addiction.
The problem is religion, not porn. Period. None of what you said is scientifically accurate. Porn addiction is a religious issue because religion has fucked people’s heads.
Why are you being so emotional? Go and visit the source that I gave you, they reference scientific articles. They are arguing from an empirical standpoint, not a religious one. Go and visit NoFap Forum or other similar communities and read people’s anecdotes about what they are suffering through. Are you going to dismiss all these people as just being fucked in the head because of religion? Grow up.
It is common knowledge that porn is unhealthy.
Good resource: https://fightthenewdrug.org/get-the-facts/
One point that psychiatrists make about addictions like porn addiction is desensitization. The brain balances the feeling of pain and pleasure automatically, so when you have an abundance of pleasure over a period of time the brain will adjust itself accordingly. This leads to the addict having to pursue newer highs to feel the same pleasure as before. In the case of porn addiction, this could be newer kinks or more extreme scenarios. Many men have unfortunately suffered from erectile dysfunction and worsened relationships with real women due to porn use. This is an established problem.
It is more fulfilling and productive to direct one’s sexual urges to a real person than a phantom. This keeps one’s self more aligned with what’s real and has good chances of establishing real and productive relationships between people. You cannot establish anything real with a phantom. You cannot have children with it, you cannot have sex with it, you cannot have mutual love with it.
There is much more to be said. All I request from you is to have some humility when approaching this issue.
All porn is bad.
Porn is unhealthy and parents have a tough time raising their children without early exposure.
Freedom to raise their children without porn.
Joke’s on you. Porn isn’t healthy.
I bet his victims in Epstein’s island would’ve appreciated that.
Then we have to ask ourselves: why is a rapist allowed to roam freely? What does that say about the country?
You’re not understanding what I’m trying to say. This ideology attacks the very idea that the conceptualization of things is bound to reality, ad-hoc, to justify fetishes, making money or other limited personal gains. Outside of these limited gains, these people must deal with reality, so they reintroduce concepts as if nothing happened. That’s why it’s ad-hoc. It’s hypocritical, anti-truth and illogical. Your example, just like other attempts to dismantle the idea of a sex binary (male and female) is fundamentally flawed. A “spork” has the function of being compact and easy to carry & distribute. Being an intersex person has no benefit, it’s a disability. It’s like being born blind or deaf. It’s unfortunate, and should not be fetishized or compared to being a transexual. It’s also highly uncommon to be intersex, so uncommon that redoing how society functions is simply too impractical. Introducing sporks has no such burden on society, and can be easily referred to in terms of a spoon and a fork, because it combines the function of both (albeit lackingly).
It doesn’t end there. They claim that there is a spectrum, not 3 sexes. So they further muddy the waters, and any attempt to categorize things can be waved away in a similar fashion to satisfy some people’s personal whims and desires. Not practical, not acceptable.
Whatever grievances we have with clothing designers or fashion, the point still stands that we will never move away from naturally putting things into boxes, especially when it comes to sex. We naturally see two sexes, and doing so turns out to be what is most in line with reality.
You put things into categories all the time, we all do. Take plates for example. If someone told you that you are not allowed to call two plates with different colors “plates”, then you would likely have considered it a bit wired. Wouldn’t you?
Also, tone down the arrogance.
You know Pakistan & India also recognizes a third gender? The Hijra. I guess the medical community has a long history of this grift all the way into antiquity such as Ancient Egypt (they wrote and described their notion of a third gender) or even somewhat recently the Mughal Empire (15th century). But yes it’s totally a grift.
Your lack of knowledge isn’t mine to fix though. You’ve set your opinion to be something malicious because you want it to be, but even a quick glance at a wiki page would tell you the much longer history.
I did not know about this term, so let’s take a look.
Wikipedia says: “In the Indian subcontinent, hijra is the generic term for trans women and may include eunuchs and intersex people […] Hijras are officially recognised as a third gender throughout countries in the Indian subcontinent”
It goes on to say: “Some hijras may form relationships with men and even marry,[32] although their marriage is not usually recognized by law or religion”
So the institution of marriage did not entertain the idea of “hijras”, that seems pretty significant to me! It begs the question which other norms, customs, practices and laws pertaining to sexes were not taking this idea into consideration. Again, you can make up a sex ad-hoc for specific purposes (fetishes, guarding harems, etc.) but you will not find it being truly recognized as another sex.
If we forward to today, you see the same thing. Medical doctors, architects, clothing designers, etc. all mostly operate according the concept of two sexes. Because that’s what’s practical, and that’s what’s most in line with reality.
This is not the argument you think it is. It would have been fine for my grandfather to call black people with a different name in his day, but >one day it wasn’t. You can argue this made him less free, but I’d disagree.
You were being inflammatory, knowingly, and that’s why you got banned. You walked into a house and decided to shit on the floor and were then surprised you were shown the door.
I said “there are only two sexes”. I got my post removed, and got banned.
In general, you should have enough tolerance to host discussions and debates for people you disagree with. Especially when you claim to be a viable Reddit alternative. You can’t ask the wider population to join your platform when you are this extreme and on the fringe. As I said, Lemmy is in the same camp as Raddle.me, not Old Reddit.
It’s also not true there are only 2 biological sexes in humans (irregardless of the social arguments that exist in current day discourse). >Intersex exists and is recognized way before the current social aspect was relevant. There are also 6 chromosomal sexes recognised in biology.
There is a benefit to not start muddying the waters when it comes to sexes.
The benefit is the conceptualization of reality, which allows us to put things that are similar into the same box (let’s call it X). Then we can say things that are in X tend to have a, b, c, … features. We can then talk more about the objects in X in a social or academic setting, and draw logical conclusions based on their features and other premises. This helps us decide which treatments to give, how to behave, how to build homes, which products to develop, which services to give and much more.
When you refuse to acknowledge that the objects in the box can be similarly referred to, and instead enforce a system where object 1 belongs in box “A”, and 2 in “B”, and 3 in “C”, etc. you challenge people’s ability to conceptualize reality efficiently. This makes medicine harder, it makes socialization harder, and other things we do as human beings that differ based on sex much harder.
It’s simply not realistic to enforce this on wider society because
I therefore believe that the whole idea of non-binary is pushed primarily as a grift by the medical industry to sell “treatments” for gender dysphoria, and as a type of fetish. It’s not something most people are interested in validating, because it’s wrong, harmful and not based on reality.
I’d argue, as a day 1 Reddit user that Reddit was way more woke than any competitor at the time. It wasn’t as woke (lol what a word) as it is today, but if you think whatever it was competing with wasn’t less woke than Reddit, I have a bridge to sell you.
It depends on the subreddit. Several subreddits that you surely would not agree with did just fine for years.
Reddit didn’t even have subreddits in the beginning, meaning that for everyone to play nice a baseline of respect had to be present.
I will repeat myself… I said “there are only two sexes”. I got my post removed, and got banned.
LMAO