It is literally "Fuck around and find out" situation. Cain is unworldy strong, not only his physical and magic but position as a noble. Who the hell is stupid enough tried to mess around with this kind of person 😅😅
Giving someone a second chance only works when you first establish that you won't give a third one.
Misunderstanding of details and explanations, or different perceptions and interpretations of the same subject matter? Because it seems to me the latter was the case, which is invariably shaped by our opinions on things. From what I saw, they understood and countered just fine, so it seems almost like an insult to their intelligence by claiming they misunderstood the details.
He seems persuasive because he talks with confidence no matter how absurd what's falling out of his noise hole sounds to people who see past the dog whistles. Peterson is a radical reactionary who cosplays as a conservative. Demographic and societal trends threaten his position of power as a white male with wealth and so he spends his time convincing people that those trends not only need to be halted but reversed back to some fictional time in the past when everybody was happy, but the reality is that they just want to go back to when women and minorities knew their place. Now that a similarly reactionary Supreme Court has overturned the right to privacy that formed the foundation for the right to an abortion so-called conservatives have moved on to non-heterosexual marriages, no-fault divorce, and contraception in any form. After that they'll move on to miscegenation, revive eugenics as policy, outlaw unions, and put down protests with lethal force. Peterson is right there with them cheering it on because his position of privilege means he has nothing to lose by these policies and with the common right wing view of zero-sum politics other people losing means he gains.
Then you're not actually reading what was said. Here is a post about them responding to you in relation to "all kids" you both thought the other said it but neither of you said it. So if you can't see stuff like that happening your eyes are just closed.
Uh, what? That seems like a whole lot of speculations and reading into things that isn't there. He sticks to his subject matter as a psychologist and focuses on the subconscious mechanisms. For real, check out his lectures. They're really good.
It's more like, those guys are just bad guys no question, so I'd expect them to kill off a kid after they used them - also for that at least we only got the after scene, not the kid dying in front of us (my own double standards I suppose). This tipped me off because we didn't know who this guy was at all 2 chapters ago, and it's a single person instead of a conglomerate of criminals.
I did see it. I just didn't address it because it was irrelevant to the other points they were making and was just nitpicking at minor details.
He's a climate change skeptic for starters. He thinks poor people are poor because of poor financial management, rather than capitalism being rigged against anyone who doesn't start with capital. And I guess you either agree with or just don't care about his anti-transgender stances. His so-called "crisis of masculinity" highlights his own mental fragility and inability to accept that gender roles are not hard-coded in someone's psyche from birth and people should be free to, within the limits of the rights of others, express their identity however they like. He thinks using a person's preferred pronouns fosters an environment of hate against cisgender people. Lastly, if you want to entrust your views to someone who thinks order is inherently masculine and chaos is inherently feminine then I just don't know how to communicate with you.
Let me guess you watched moon channel because of the limbus company gender war thing didn't you?
i think China's case is more of they're like that because of the government too..
And this is where you're an idiot. You just want to win. You're not here with any sincerity.
you SHOULD be a skeptic of everything, before believing it, i believe in climate change for one because I've seen effects of the thing and i questioned it first before believing, if you just believed everything presented to you without trying to verify then that really just ends up in poor judgement on your part also pretty contradictory to what you say after, since the only reason you came up with capitalism being rigged is because you doubted the system you were born into and were a skeptic of it.
debatable, that's like saying people from poor countries that start off dirt poor can't climb up the ladder at all because capitalism is just against them and working hard does nothing to them which is already proven false, there are numerous cases of people doing just that and yes it took them longer than the rest of their peers but it still happened and you can look it up yourself, unlike the west there aren't privileges given to poor people in say Southeast asia, the barrier to climb up the ladder is hard but not impossible and yes some people are poor because of poor financial management, some people are born into poverty, here where i'm at there are cases where people in the past thought being in the capital region was where all their dreams would come true so they sold their possessions to get here and work here then some of them did fall off due to poor financial decisions despite their lives where they were at being sustainable and decent. I do agree that there is some truth to the system being rigged against people who don't start with capital but that's not the only way to go to the top. there's no one size fits all answer when you're talking about people and their financial status, what would your alternative be to capitalism then? i get the system itself isn't perfect but i don't think its as bad as people think
pretty much, they also made it sure before to end them up to the 3rd degree or something which is pretty brutal but family loyalty is very strong in these stories
Nope, no idea what that even is. My point is that if you want to make gross generalizations about the US, I can do the same about Asia as well. It's to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to make generalizations.Let me guess you watched moon channel because of the limbus company gender war thing didn't you?
i think China's case is more of they're like that because of the government too..
Hong Kong idk, were they known to be submissive? didn't they protest a lot there too?
The three points are not mine, you couldn't even comprehend that much? Those were the points that other poster was making that you were incapable of even recognizing were made, instead just dismissing it as a misunderstanding due to language barrier. But now that I put it into plain words for you to understand, it lacks intellectual sincerity and is dishonest? Also, way to go dismissing everything as intellectually dishonest. The last thing you want to do if you want to engage in a conversation is call the other person dishonest, dumb, or stupid. Who is the intellectually immature one here?
Perfectly fine, the US however is a country that just happens to be too big, you'd get generalizations about it regardless and the generalizations mostly vary from good to bad anyway, majority is due to the loud side of the states. Its very easy to make negative generalizations of the country due to its strong presence everywhere(this is not something the states can deny too) they're also one of the few countries in the world that's openly very nationalistic but its people for whatever reason see that as a bad thing all in part of the history its had, slippery country tbh, My whole shtick with it is, the people who are often against spanking, GENERALLY comes from there, same country couldn't discipline its kids enough not to openly record crime, has a number of cases of criminal acts by the youth and i believe is the largest one with the most number of acts done by said juvies, also a country that has sadly a lot of gun related violence in schools done also by the youth. I'm talking about them in particular, they're quick to judge how asians, latinos etc discipline their kids and are quick to call it "violence" when there's a way of disciplining with spanking that is acceptable and doesn't end in trauma(my whole stance there is, "discipline should never end in injury") but couldn't manage their own kids and get them out of trouble or crime.
not like they had much of a choice tho, didn't the English abandon them anyway? the US couldn't intervene as the deal wasn't even between them and China, it was between the crown and China, anyone would've fled and unlike the states, much of asia doesn't have a strong arms culture, if the US did regardless of the appeal of the HK nationals they'd be considered invading, which really doesn't sit well with the rest of the world, TW, PH and other related allies are the ones they can interfere with. So its not like the HK Nationals who fled and didn't protest, did it because they agreed, they did it to survive, because the crown, which still half-owns the country didn't send aid
The problem with generalizing it like that is the US population itself is very divided. You have the liberal cities where theft, vandalism, and gang violence run rampant. The liberals are the ones most likely to be anti-corporal punishment and easy on crime, but they're also the ones more likely to be foreign culture aware. Conservatives, more likely to be found in rural areas, are generally in favor of the corporal and heavy discipline approach. They are also the least likely to be foreign culture aware. Rural and small suburban schools are where the majority of school shootings occur, so it's incorrect to correlate liberal gentle parenting to school shootings. Everything else is fair game.
