[–] [S] 5 points 1 day ago

It all happened two weeks ago, I didn't talk to him for whole day after that conversation. Next day, things eased off and everything returned to normal but we never talked about that conversation ever again. I don't think bringing that up is necessary. There are several other ways to express that my love and respect for him has increased even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Do we call post-transition to medical/surgical transition or to period after coming out as trans. When I first met him, he was tomboyish in dressing - no piercing (like ear or nose, that we commonly see on women). Behavior wise quite non-expressive. After his coming out. I initiated if he wants to meet specialists for medical or surgical help. He refused with disgust while counter questioning - "Would that make me more trans?". I don't know if he's still in his cocoon or a grown butterfly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There's social persuation going on against people who don't eat sandwitches - Some are saying "They don't eat sandwitches because they've never eaten the right one", Other are insisting that "They need to force fed", Cultists are forcing that "Refusing to eat sandwitches is a disorder/disease". Wide acceptance is lacking that there can be people who are beyond sandwitches.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago

    Heuristics is a good device but it doesn't work with lookism. For example - Baldness isn't a conclusive evidence for a person to be considered unsafe or ill natured. We can't determine everyone's nature by just their looks. "Looks can be deceiving" is a good phrase.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    If that is so then they are quite successful. Dems supporters are busy on green pond and WH Ufc while core problems like war, genocide, oligarchy, ICE, Epstein files have taken a backseat.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago

    Yes, beauty standard is historically pretty high in the case of women. The whole women beauty industry make profit off of manufacturing insecurities about their appearance. Worse happen when Aesthetics becomes priority over Health. News related to ozempic (weight loss drug) death has become a common occurrence in the recent years.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Thanks for replying and it provides proper answer to my first question. But I would like to know your opinion on the 2'nd question, "Is negativity of lookism causing people to incline towards lookmaxxing?" (to aquire pretty privileges)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    The problem with lookism is that it takes someone's appearance as face value and judges based on it which is just prejudice. There's more to a person than its appearance. Why would someone be mocked for its hair-loss, baldness or facial features?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago

    Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it's non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)
    • Clarifying; "Animals can't consent thus any sexual activity becomes rape" is related to Animal-Human copulation. As zoophilia was mentioned in previous sentence.

    From animals' perspective, Non-consensual killing is worst than Non-consensual sex (Rape). Their similarities lies in the negation of consent by the humans and both actions are unjust. Humans are just giving out disingenuous arguments to hide their crime of killing innocent animals because they benefit from such injustices.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government's approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don't see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That's not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Whenever I talk to any Democrat supporters, they by-default cheer their Presidents and then I've to remind them of their leader's illegal wars and war crimes. They condemn those acts and they go back to their cheerleading role - Why do they keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? Why do they accept war criminals as their leader?

    view more: next ›