BY READING PASS THIS, YOU AGREE YOU ARE MATURE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THIS!
Harmony is a new robot/doll that came out. It's main purpose is to be Sex Bot or is also referred to as Sex Doll. However, the company took it up a notch (well, maybe a lot of notches) as it now has artificial intelligence that's actually pretty cool.
"Harmony smiles, blinks and frowns. She can hold a conversation, tell jokes and quote Shakespeare. Sheâ€™ll remember your birthday, what you like to eat, and the names of your brothers and sisters. She can hold a conversation about music, movies and books. And of course, Harmony will have sex with you whenever you want."
This is how she looks. She will be on the market for $15,000.
The reviews for it (from what I was told) are a lot of people who are...
1. Guys not good in social skills
2. Friendzoned guys
3. Guys who gave up on dating
4. Mentally Ill people
5. People whose girlfriends/wives have died and they can't get over it
6. Couples who want the fantasy threesome
8. Straight women who want to experiment
I am for it; I feel if yo want it then you can have it. One complaint was that rapists would use this to cope with their "rapiness" (idk how to explain) which is kinda dumb because I would rather a rapist have sex with a robot/doll then doing it to an actual person.
Another complaint was that it reinforces the idea that women are just there for their bodies. I will make the argument that people will always cherish relationships with other people, even other women (unless they are sexist). And you can't act like women don't have dildos. Yes, they don't talk, but if they did, I doubt that argument would be made again. Considering Harmony is really new, it will be time before they make a guy version.
While on this argument, the add-on argument was that its the "perfect date" and men can pretend to care for human interaction with a woman. Let me tell you, Harmony could be everyone. What that tells me is that you can't hold a conversation, can't be talked to about music, movies, etc., you won't remember his birthday, you never remember what he likes to eat, and you won't ever have sex with him. Any boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, or husband can be that. Heck, best friends have most of that except for sex (usually).
Like anything, off-topic subjects always ends up somehow getting into everything. For example, the argument I just told you about came from a Feminist, so therefore, the Anti-Feminists came in. Part of what the Feminist said was that feminism is to show women don't need men. Anti-Feminists said "and men don't need women." Generally, the Anti-Feminists (including women) were saying "keep your dildos, you don't need men; do what you do. We will do what we do." And, I'm not going to lie, I don't even know what the Feminists are trying to do. Women got sex machines, vibrating dildos, squirting dildos, so I don't get how there is no outrage on that. *shrug*
So there is a social and moral question to whether the Sex Bot is right. I believe, in both counts, that it is right and that it should be in the market. Now, I'm not saying put it in the bread section of Walgreens; if I had to guess, it'll be order online only because I don't see a store putting that in public with a sign like "Sex Doll for $15,000!."
With all of that, are you for or against the idea of sex dolls to this extent? Explain why on the moral and social standard. Then, if your closest friend had one, how would you react? What will you say or do, and why?
I have faith in Trump. In my 16 years of living, I have NEVER been so hyped for someone, and I'm not even a hype person.
People say Trump is racist, sexist, and whatever "-ist" you can think of, but it's not true.
I believe in eliminating radical Islamic terrorism. I support deporting Syrian refugees. America is and will always be #1 target of terrorist organizations, and it is America #1 job to make sure it and it's people are secure. Les replace that with black refugees, and I was a black refugee, I will vote for Trump and pack my bags. I will leave and come back. Trump isn't saying they can't come back after the ISIS war is over.
People say "He's racist towards Muslims!" In order for someone to be racist, their reasoning has to be racist. His reasoning is that most of the terrorists are Muslims (which is a fact). He said to send them back until we got this ISIS business done with, because you cannot tell me the none of the Syrian refugees are terrorist. Hillary's logic is "We will keep accepting Refugees even though it put American lives in danger," I'm not saying American lives are worth more than anyone else, but America must protect itself from unwanted terrorist. If you support letting in refugees, you shouldn't complain when we get bombed or massacred by some Syrian Refugee who happened to be ISIS because American is the ONLY one that blindly let them in.
If it was black refugees and not Syrians. If i was a refugee, I would vote for Trump 100% and pack my things. Then, when things are over, I will be moving back to America. I understand America's need to protect itself from ISIS, because we are and forever will be the #1 target from any and all terrorist corporations.
He's not racist, and he is not sexist. I hear about what he said about groping women 11 years ago, but everyone talks like that. A lot of women I know talks like that. Him and Hillary are both people with personal lives; they are not goody-tissue actors; they aren't acting for Disney or Nickelodeon. I talk sexually dirty like that. Heck, I used to be in a democrat-dominated group that talked like that all day long which had females in it who talked dirtier than the guys. And it's not like he knew he was going to go for President 11 years ago anyways.
The reason people think he is racist is because of that idiotic term called "Political correctness." I don't care if someone says African American, Black, colored person, person of color, or you people. Blacks say "Us, the black people" and even says "You people" as in white people. Colored people is racist, but person of color is not is bogus beyond belief. This idea that blacks can't be racist is absurd. Political correctness is bogus.
Cop vs Blacks
Trump went to a Cleveland Church (black church) and was talking about the shootings in Oklahoma. He goes to say, that it was disturbing. He says not only are the people troubled so are the cops. To answer your question, he says â€œBut maybe [cops] like that, people that choke, people that do that, maybe they canâ€™t be doing what theyâ€™re doing.â€
So, he is saying they need to be fired and taken to court because whatever the reason is, they are not fit and/or can't handle it, and it shouldn't have happened. He criticized the bad cops and the radical BLM about killing cops. To Trump, killing cops isn't the answer because you need law and order, and he will make sure they get what they deserve because we also need peace between police and civilians.
Sweep Hillary's stuff under the rug?
Let's not forget Hillary called black people Super Predators (but everyone wants to forget that). We should talk about that and not that Trump said "you people" instead of "people of color" bc remember "colored person" is totally different. How about the time she called Trump supporters, like myself, irredeemable? That is the worst moral judgment you can make on anyone. How about the time she said Bernie supporters were basement dwellers? That translates to "losers in society". No, we must forget all about that, but let's not forget what Trump said 11 years ago.
How about the 38,000 emails? Hillary tries to be innocent, but if that was true, why does her staff doesn't need immunity deals? And why did Hillary's staff plead the fifth and Hillary doesn't remember?
How about how she played the woman card multiple times to win? That doesn't sound a little suspicious? It's one thing to win because your female, it's another to ask others to vote for you because you are female.
The thing with immigration, no one is saying they can't come over; we are saying to come over legally. People say "Oh, they don't have nothing." It STILL doesn't stop them from coming over legally. If they are illegal and they do a crime, we can't track them. And you cannot tell me that out of ALL illegal immigrants, none of them are criminals. You cannot tell me 0% of them are criminals. Many illegal workers will steal IDs or give bogus info to hospitals for the medical bill. If id theft, the person is either forced to pay it or it comes out of the government's funding (taxes). If bogus info, it comes out of our taxes. If I'm correct, medical bills are a monster to pay.
Let's make a scenario. Mr. Fee is buying food for the family. The food he brings is meant for him, Mrs. Fee, Jordyn, and Justin (Let's say Jordyn and Justin are older and they pay rent). All of a sudden, the food/money he has isn't enough. Little does he know, Jordyn and Justin are sneaking in friends. The funds (economy) of the Fee family (America) is going down because Justin and Jordyn keeps secretly housing in friends. THEN, Mr. Fee see's that someone stole something, BUT since he doesn't know the person (illegal immigrant), the police (government) can't track them down. Justin and Jordyn (the U.S. people) won't speak up because they don't want the "nice guy" to go to jail, but let's forget about Mr. Fee tho. If he knew about the others, he could do a background check, and they could pay rent and his money (economy) would be working again.
Hillary says they pay taxes, but we can't track them so that is bogus, and I believe they get cash most of the time, so they can't track the $$$ if it's cash.
Before anyone say "They get jobs we don't want, and they don't get paid much. Just make them legal."
1) That is unfair to the people who've been waiting in line.
(And Trump says he will change the process because it is inefficiently done, so if he hated everyone, why would he do that?)
2) If we do make them legal, their wages would increase to minimum wage just as if anyone else was there to pick them.
Another thing, we get people and when we try to deport them back to their country, their country is all like "No, we don't want him." Trump is proposing "No, you will take him back because he is your people." This is not only with people who just crossed the border, but people who have crossed the border who are also rapists and murderers. If America isn't going to provide a national death penalty, then we can't be housing OTHER countries' criminals.
Abortion (Including Late-Abortion)
Its a matter of morality and societal impact.
As far as morality, its whether the mother should be able to kill an unborn baby which is a person. If she has the right to kill, the baby doesn't have the right to live. Many trump supporters, women and men of all ages (including grandmas), believes that it is murder. To them, its like if I muredered my cousin to keep myself alive.
As far as societal impact, if women are allowed to get an abortion ANY TIME in the 9 months, a lot (if not, most) will use it as 100% birth control, and will also be seen as "Oh, this baby is an inconvenience, so I'm going to kill the baby." And many doctors have said late-abortions are medically unnecessary.
Hillary says "I dont support late-abortions just as long as the Mother's health is taken in account." However, the supreme court ruled that "health" must include: physical, emotional, and psychological health. This will make it too vague and make the conditions worthless and make it 100% birth control.
Trump supporters aren't misogynistic even though people want to believe that and neither is Trump. The debate isnt a personal attack on women, so Trump isn't personally attacking all women and neither is anyone who agrees with him. Its like how anti-gun debate isn't a personal attack on either side.
Trump mocking disabled people
Misconception believe it or not. People believe he was mocking Serge Kovaleski, a disabled man. That's what the media wants to show you, but if Trump really was mocking him, Trump's arms would've been still because Serge cannot move some of his muscles. Involuntary movement is not part of Serge's disability. Serge also found no problem with the impersonation which was directed to him. Another thing, if you impersonate a person, any person, you must impersonate them fully. If someone impersonate a man in a wheelchair, they need a chair or, otherwise, an actual wheelchair to impersonate.
Impersonate =/= mocking.
Another thing, this is his response:
Trump disrespecting U.S. Veterans
He wasn't. That was totally out of context. A few months ago, my dad (whose a veteran), told me that he seen some men commit suicide. My dad's exact words were "They just couldn't handle it." If you go to war, and come back with PTSD, and go crazy, then you couldn't. I know I can't handle war, so I wouldn't dare try. Some people don't know because, sometimes, a person doesn't know whether they would be able to take it until it happens.
Some can handle the military and some can't. That is a fact because if it wasn't, soldiers wouldn't have committed suicide for getting yelled very aggressively by the sergeant or after seeing someone die.
Trump was not saying they were weak. He was saying they couldn't handle it. If a police officer started going crazy and did reckless behavior and actions due to what he has seen, then he couldn't handle it. Like I said, I can't handle it but that doesn't make me weak. I can't handle being a cop or fireman but that doesn't make me weak.
Videos I recommend watching
White men under attack
To be honest, that is why Trump is getting so much hate by the media. He is a rich white man and people label rich white men as evil and cunning. If that's not racist, I don't know what is. If affirmative action isn't a slap in the face, I don't know what the heck is then,
White men in America are under attack, especially, in College campuses. They are treated poorly in gender studies, ethnic classes, and the general public. This idea that minorities(Spanish or black) can't be racist is absurd. The logic to some radicals is: If a black person say you are racist, you are. With that, when i hear "You're racist" and I know my white folk isn't racist, I like to go up and say "he isn't." They either choke or say I'm blind. When I ask why they have say my friend is racist, I hear crickets. Then they say "because he's white." If THAT is not racist, I don't know what is. At the end, they either choke or say I'm blind. Yeah, that's a fine way to make your point.
"Sorry, Bob, we must accept Tyrome because he's black." You'd might as well tell white people in schools, "Get used to hearing that. Remember, you're a majority, and so we put things against you due to it."
Whites enslaved us
My family used to say to me "white people can't say black jokes, they enslaved us. It's only acceptable if blacks say white jokes." Really? If we're blaming whites for their ancestors, why not blame ourselves for our ancestors sending us to slavery? I hear crickets. Then they would say "You just don't understand." I would ask them to educate me, and they say "because they raped us." which is true. BUT our ancestors are still the ones who gave us away. EVEN if they didn't, why are we blaming today's whites? Should we hate all Germans because of Hitler? All Italians because of Mussolini? All Japanese people because of the radical guy during WWII (Can't ever remember his name lol)?
Racial double-standards is bull crap just like any double-standards. Many people I know in person knows I'm a strong believer in anti-double-standards. They should be eradicated and never come back because it's stuff like this that divides people.
White people are under attack and it is injust. I'm glad to be a black man because I'm in a better position to defend my white folks. JUST like how some slave owners helped slaves get away, but EVERYONE wants to forget about that. I want to help my white folks and I tell them that. I always hear "thank you." I hear it from real-life friends, teachers, and internet friends. It's on youtube, facebook, and everywhere.
A little off topic: Men are abused from the left; White men are abused from left and right.
Men, in general, are getting abused. This "You can't defend yourself against a woman, if you do, you're not a man." is absurd. So, women can abuse us, rape us, verbally attack us, falsely accuse us of rape to ruin our reputation, and they get off free or, otherwise, easily and MUCH easier than men, but when men just defend themselves, they are devils.You are taking the right to defend one's self away from men and then you take more stuff away from those who are white. Doesn't that not bother anyone? Is that just swept under the rug because of ancestors whose long since died? Isn't swept under the rug because "women are physically weaker." If so, why they hitting us, then? How come there is an increase of women abusing men?
CDC Study: More Men than Women Victims of Partner Abuse. SUMMARY: According to a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice, in the last 12 months more men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at men
My mom told me something very important: "Women only hit men because they believe the men won't hit back."
I respect and I don't hate you for choosing Hillary over Trump. I just ask you respect and don't hate me for choosing Trump over Hillary.
Trump for USA Prez 2016!!!
I want to say why this post is not good.
For one, this is jealousy and insecurity speaking. "I trust him, but not them." That is dumb; you have to trust him 100%. If you only trust him as far as you can see him, that is not trust, just verification.
Second, don't dictate what friends your BF/GF can be with because you are afraid that something might happen between them AKA insecurity.
Third, that last one is the dumbest. "...or you used to like." If a female tells me "Sorry, I don't like you like that, but we can be friends." You mean to tell me, if we date, I gotta break dat up too? Why do women say it, then? Why not "No, I don't like you like that way and we cannot be friends" and end this "confusion"?
Fourth, a guy/girl can't control who likes them. You trust them to say no and keep it moving. If the guy/girl persist, you trust them to break off the friendship. If you got trust issues, don't be in a relationship. Don't burden ur other with that stuff. You go and fix yourself up.
If I see one more "I got trust issues, it is your job to show me different" I'm gonna explode. It is NOT their job. It is YOUR job to fix YOUR problems. That sounds snobby as heck. "The guys I dated did this, so you must be the same. If not, show me different." Really? REALLY??? I, hereby, say "All black girls I've met are rude, so therefore, every black girls is rude. If not, show me different." Watch how people scream "RACISM AND SEXISM!" on that.
Okay, that's my response.
What you think?
One thing I hate is someone attacking my character. That pisses me off like nobody's business.
These are fake names and ones involved in this is not in the forums.
What started the argument
Lana asks me to read her paper. I didn't know she just wanted me to read it and not correct it; she just wanted me to read it for the story (I'm not complaining). There was a sentence in her paper that caught my eye.
"I had helped raise this wolf working at the reserve, I helped with all the animals."
Now, besides the fact "while" should be between "wolf" and "working", there should be a semi-colon after reserve. She is combining two full sentences (which she tried to tell me they weren't), and I, gently, told her that there should be a semi-colon. She said she didn't know about that and that she believe I am wrong because her English Teacher didn't correct it. From there, (she hasn't told me to not give corrections yet) I tried to explain to her about independent clauses and that they can only be joined by a semi-colon.
She said that I was degrading and whatnot. I said that I wasn't; I'm just trying to tell her why I am right and why her English Teacher is wrong. She didn't buy it, stopped responding for a while. Our friend. Sarah, told me that Lana said that I might have been helping her but I said it in a degrading way. I understand this because it is the internet, things get misinterpreted all the time. Mind you, I'm in no way mad about it.
Now, while Lana was ignoring me, I decided to ask my English Teacher because I felt bad and I wanted to know if I was wrong because if I'm going to correct her, and if she does, eventually, believe me, I wanted to make sure it was right. Basically, I started 2nd guessing myself.
In the midst of me feeling bad, I felt guilty because I thought "What if I would've never brought it u?" I know there was no why I could've known she didn't want criticism but still. Mind you, I'm not mad about the semi-colon. This is just how it got started.
This is why I'm pissed off
We started discussing how I talk. That is no problem for me; I don't mind getting criticized for how I talk. I only get mad if I have already told you I don't care because certain words I know is wrong but I don't feel comfortable saying it the right way. For example, you would say "that is mine." I say "mines" because it sounds better, but if someone corrects me, I don't get mad about it until after I have told them to stop.
We talked about interrupters and she gave me a sentence I said. I gave my explanation, and then I thought "wait a minute." I looked it up and I was wrong. I said she was right and I was wrong. Since we are on the topic of grammar, I decided to, at least, give it one more shot because I'm not mad about the semi-colon; I'm just trying to help her because she think it's the right way. She WILL get marked down if her next English Teacher sees it.
She said I was petty, know-it-all, condescending, etc. I'm trying to tell you that it is wrong and your argument is your English Teacher didn't correct it. Teachers aren't perfect. I've seen teachers read a paper 5x and missed a few grammar errors. Now, what I am mad about is that she attacked my character, and there is a reason I hate that besides the point it can be defaming and rude if wrong.
Lana and Sarah just admitted that I am all them things to them. Really? REALLY??? I am trying to help you and now, you are saying I am petty and inconsiderate. Yes, it's just a comma but, nonetheless, it's an error no matter how big or small. Again, I am NOT mad about the comma and semi-colon. i gave up trying to tell her because you can't force help on others.
Inconsiderate: Lana didn't say it, but she has heavily implied it. Petty + condescending + know-it-all = inconsiderate.
These 3 characteristics equals inconsiderate. Remember, I'm not simply just dreaming to become a therapist, I help people with life issues at least 2 - 3x a month, so I know all about personalities and characteristics.
Don't call me petty and a know-it-all. I am just saying "a semi-colon needs to be there." I'm not perfect; I don't try to be, and what do I get out of putting people down? You wanna hear my motto?
"You get what you give."
Nowadays, I tell people "I live to help." HELP IS THE KEYWORD. I don't get a rush from putting people down, that is what sick and controlling people do. I was the first to leave the convo. It was SUPPOSED to have ended, but guess what? Lana came responding to my msgs that she ignored (Sarah played as the messenger (which I didn't like but watever)). This is right after she got done ignoring my msgs and right after I left chat. I only know about the msg because I forgot my phone notifies me of msgs.
Basically, to sum it up, she said her English Teacher went to school to teach English and I'm wrong. Then she told me about my speech, and I thought I tell her about her sentence. I am not mad about the comma or semi-colon, but if you put that in a paper, any real English teacher that notices it WILL MARK IT DOWN AND YOU WILL LOSE POINTS (I didn't tell her that). Even though she continued the grammar convo, apparently, I'm the bad guy because now Sarah is saying it is my fault like... WHAT?
Let me get this straight: I am petty, inconsiderate, know-it-all, condescending, because I was trying to help you on your grammar? Can you not take criticism? Look it up, if u need to. No one is saying you are stupid. Another thing: How can I make you look stupid when it's a DM?!?!?! It's only me and you, so no one is gonna know unless I tell someone else or you tell someone else. Like, right now, I made this blog entry, but no one knows her. She could, literally, sign up on here and no one would know if neither of us mention it.
Back to why I'm so pissed. Let's say, for example, Bob says "Hey, in your game, Leonardo is a bit too powerful." I'm not gonna say "Well, Jimmy thinks it's fine, so your criticism is invalid." I'm using this because, at times, there is a clear line on whether a character is OP or not, right? Like how there is a clear line on whether a comma or semi-colon should be used.
Again, I'm not mad about the grammar. I'm mad that they attacked my character. Like, I'm trying to help you for your next graded paper, so you don't get a lot of points taken off, but no, right? I'm an inconsiderate person that is a know-it-all, right? I'm so petty for helping you, right? I'm totally trying to make you look stupid, right? I am getting such a good rush from making you look stupid, right?
I have helped you with your life issues, yet I am inconsiderate, huh? See, you, as a friend, I try to help you, so you don't make the same mistakes. I want to become a therapist, so I can help people not make the same mistake again and guide them so they can be the best they can be. I'm inconsiderate, right? I am the most petty and inconsiderate person in the world, why would I even think about being a therapist, right? Is that what you think of me because I'm trying to help you? I told you MULTIPLE times, I was not saying it in a mean way. but apparently, I must be wrong, right? It doesn't matter what I mean, it matters how it looks, right? It's the internet, crap get misinterpreted all the time; that is why we got emoticons. I must be wrong about that too, right?
I must be so petty talking about this, right? After you attacked my character and I defended myself, I must be the most petty person out there. See, if you weren't my friend, I would've just said whatever. If we weren't friends, you think I would still be in that argument trying to help you? Have you thought about that? Oh yeah, that's right, I'm petty and a know-it-all, so I couldn't possibly have done that because I cared about you and your grades.
You know what? Yes, that is a small error, but you think it's right, so you'll do it multiple times which adds up as A WHOLE LOT OF LOST POINTS. Wait, that can't be the reason why I am helping you because why would I help you if I am so inconsiderate, right? Hmmm, there must be another explanation.
*5 years later*
I found no new explanation. I care about you, but I am so inconsiderate, right? You had one big error in your paper, but I said "forget it" because I'm feeling to old to be this young. You wanna be wrong on your papers? Go on, right ahead. Don't attack my character because you don't want to fathom the thought that your teacher might have missed it because teachers are not perfect. I have seen teachers read an essay 5+ times and didn't find crap wrong with it (I'm not mad at you, Teachers, keep doing your jobs).
I'm just pulling that outta my butt, right? No way is that true. I'm just a petty and inconsiderate moron that doesn't know what he's saying, right? If you ask ANY internet friend who I have known for years about what happened, they know I'm not like that.
Mind all reading this, I was going to leave, but if you chase me, sort of speak, I'm not going to keep running while you keep chasing me. When she told me she didn't want criticism, I was going to let it go and then she just had to go for my grammar (which i liked because I was wrong, and I learned something), but when I try to help her with hers, I'm inconsiderate, right? I'm just a despicable and petty person, right?
I just HATE IT SO MUCH when my character is attacked, ESPECIALLY when you haven't even checked in ANY way if you were right or wrong. See, when I was criticized, I'd admit, I spoke before I looked it up but when I did, RIGHT AFTER, I learned I was wrong. I came back and told her I was wrong and sorry.
About the semi-colon and comma,like I said before, I double checked to be sure I was right. Can't be, right? I only asked my teacher because I get a rush from being told I'm right, right? It has nothing to do about me trying to help you, right?
This is what some people don't understand. The error, even if small, if you feel it is right, it will pile up on you if you do it multiple times thinking it's correct when it is, indeed, an error. They are small, but it is important you understand them because it can only better you life, and that is in ANYTHING YOU DO, not just grammar, but y'know, what do I know? I'm just an inconsiderate moron that just loves to be told I'm right, huh? Y'know wut I'm more interested in? Helping people and getting joy out of that. I don't enjoy making people look stupid and being a bully. I have A LOT of weight on my shoulders, but I still do it. Y'know why? I get joy from helping people, and the joy outweighs ANY weight that may be on my shoulders.
Let me give you a summary:
Friend 1's Game
Friend 2's Game
Friend 3's Game
Friend 4's Game
Friend 5's Game
Friend 6's Game <= Pending
Helping people with life issues
Do you notice anything? Every single one, except for "School" and "My Game", is me helping someone else. Y'know why? Cuz I love helping and I was trying to help you, but apparently, when I say "I wasn't saying it in that way." I must be lying, right? I totally love to put people down because it give me a sudden rush.
I'm the criminal, right? I won't tell you any more criticism. If your story had 1,000 errors, I won't say crap.
Oh yeah, I didn't forget when you said you wanted to be a writer or an actor. Remember that conversation? Yeah, I was trying to help you in case you went for being a writer. Not only that, it's because I... hold on... lemme think... oooooh yeah, cuz I care about you. Wait, that doesn't make sense because I'm so inconsiderate, right? Gosh, why am I so inconsiderate? I am ashamed of myself, I wanna get banned from the forums because I just can't live with myself anymore. I'm a know-it-all, arrogant, inconsiderate, and petty. Wow, I got some issues, Imma need the bible, some holy water, candles, Riki's rainbow magic, and Kaz's Admin powers to get me out of this because who knew I was so inconsiderate, right?
Summary of what happened
I told her about the Semi-Colon
She didn't believe me
I broke it down for her TO HELP HER
She seen it as degrading
I told her I wasn't trying to do that
She didn't believe me
Said her English Teacher didn't correct it, so it's right
I'm trying to tell her that the English Teacher either missed it, was being lenient, or she/he is just wrong
She finally tells me she doesn't want criticism
I told her I wasn't telling her because of the error, though, that is what started it. I'm telling her now because she thinks it's right.
She called me petty, know-it-all, and condescending
I'm trying to defend myself (like some people would)
I get yelled at by both girls saying it's my fault
I just leave
Was I wrong? If I am at fault of anything, tell me (I won't get offended).
Note: I did not filter anything, everything I told you is exactly how it happened because if I am wrong, I wanna know.
Lately, I've been seeing a debate on facebook about whether a man have the right to hit a woman IF she hits him first.
My Mom always told me "When a woman hits a man, she hit him because she think he won't hit back." So, my Mom tells me to hit her back. My Dad, on the other hand, says to never hit women no matter what. My belief is a bit of both sides except that I don't differentiate between a male and female. I'll always try to walk away if possible from any fight. If you are following me then there is a serious problem that is about to blow up. Before I saw anything else...
Ladies, I'm not saying all of you believe this but maybe you can shed some light on this for me. if we are equal (which I'm not denying), why is it that when this topic pops up, a lot of girls say "we are the weaker gender blah blah blah." I mean, was the whole point of feminism and stuff was to show you are as good as us? Again, I'm not denying that you are equal but if you're equal you have to be fully equal. Let me put it this way.
From where I'm sitting, it sounds like "Don't hit us back because we are the weaker gender. We should be able to hit you and you do nothing. We are the weaker gender but don't tell us that because we like to think we are your equal. We can't control ourselves so we want you to pay for our inability to control ourselves. You should never hit a woman."
Again, I believe we should have equal rights. I'm not denying it nor am I saying we shouldn't be equal.
How about this? Don't hit ANYONE. Stop differentiating men and women if they are supposed to be equal in rights. If a woman has the right to hit a man in defense, why can't the man do the same? I know there are Morales and I have high Morales and I don't see the morality in that. Feminists always complain they are not the weaker gender but they claim they are the weaker gender when stuff like this happens. I believe what my Mom said. "When a woman hits a man, she hit him because she think he won't hit back." It bothers me because people act like it's okay. "Psssh, oh, well, you know, morals are in place so you can't defend yourself."
Now, I don't have any grudge with females. I met some really nice ones and some really mean ones. Double-standards bother me and I mean both ways. Meaning, I hate all double-standard ideas that exist. You are either equal or you're not. I'm not saying males and females are EXACTLY the same as in emotions and such but when it come to rights, yes, it should 100% be the same.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, period. This "man shouldn't hit a woman" thing is crazy because you are robbing a man his right to defend himself.
Clarification: I have no grudge against women and I'm not generalizing all women.
What do you think?
If you're a man, would you ever hit a woman?
This quest came from a few episodes I found on the TV show, Steve Wilkos. This also popped up on other multiple TV Shows.
Should a person wait until after college before being in a committed relationship? Mom and I have also discussed this and I believe that it is not really a rule everyone should follow. Meaning, it's more of a preference rather than advice. My Mom feels that one should wait 1 - 2 years after college before getting into a committed relationship. I am not that type of person. There is nothing I do now that I wouldn't be able to do in a marriage.
Like I said, this should be a matter of preference and circumstances. I don't plan on traveling; I'm not saying that it isn't going to effect anything because I can meet a girl that loves traveling. I don't travel a lot so it's no worry for me when going into a marriage. I've been the same person who never changed for many years. I don't think my interests are going to change 10 years from now.
And I don't love the single life. That's usually the main reason people say you should wait. "Why do you want to be cuffed right after college?" Let me tell you, if your relationship feels like prison, that marriage wasn't working anyway. I'm more a committer rather than a dater so it could be why I feel this way. Meaning, I'm a great dater but I'm not like a 100% dater that dates someone, dumps them a week later, and then go on to the next date.
Some are daters and have been for probably years. I'm just not that type of person. I only date people who I see a chance with. I never go with "in the meantime" girls.
Do you think people should wait until after college to be in a committed relationship? If so, how long?
Mom and I was just discussing this and I wanna know what you guys think.
I believe that that, a person should be allowed to still talk to their ex unless they're lunatics. You know what I mean? Let's take a Scenario of Josh and Sally.
Josh and Sally dated from age 25 - 30. They break up because they just aren't good as a couple but agrees to be friends because they are better friends than a couple. Let's say at age 35, Josh finds a girl named Brooke.
If Brook says "You have to stop talking to Sally if you want to continue this relationship." Should Josh stop talking to Sally?
I say no because unless it was a nasty break-up and Sally was the crazy one; I see no problem of them talking to each other. What you are essentially saying is "Don't date your friends." I just don't think a potentially good friendship should be immediately abolished after break-up. Some people are great friends but aren't great as a couple. To me, there isn't really a good reason to say no unless their ex is crazy.
If you have a problem with it, with no reason, then you're saying "I don't want her talking to my boyfriend because she used to have him." Yes, people are exes for a reason, but the reason isn't always so serious that the friendship afterwards needs to be extinguished.
What do you guys think?
For those who don't know what this is, I'll explain it
The "No child left behind" is where, in middle-school and elementary, kids would pass no matter what their grades are. This idea was created so children won't feel bad when they failed and all of their friends move to the next grade.
I think it's trying to creep it's way into High-School because there is a grade inflation in America. I don't know about other countries, but America is suffering a grade inflation. I believe (it is only a theory) that the grade inflation is the effect of "No child left behind." All of the potential American presidents have the same thing in common, which is, if I'm correct, abolishing the "No child left behind" which I am totally for. Either way, I'm voting for Bernie; GO BERNIE.
Anywho, this has been a debate for a long time; especially in High Schools since this isn't mentioned in middle school and elementary for obvious reasons. I just don't understand why people this would be good for the long run. Lessons are meant to be learnt. Everyone needs to learn that failing can hold you back; that's in life. I just think they are doing the little kids dis-service by not teaching them this. Yes, they'll feel bad but they know to not fail again.
How do you feel about "No child left behind"? Do you think it should be abolished or not?
I thought of this debate because of an experience I had about 2 hours ago. Should parents protect their children from everything, including their parents? And should respect be both ways regardless of age?
Let's start with the 1st question
My Mom asked "Do you mind going to the store?"
I said: "If you have an extra $4."
The reason I asked for the $4 was because I wanted some Air Heads and they're $4. Then my Aunt made a comment saying that Grandpa (visitor or not at his house) will make you go. He'll say "Boy, go get that [insert item here]." Of course, this isn't the nice tone you would normally think it would be.
I said "Then I'm not going to get it."
Then Mom said "Then I'll [insert threat here] to you."
(Can't remember what exactly she said)
So I asked a very plain and straight forward answer.
"Is your father's feelings more important than mine."
My Mom said "Yes."
I told her to not bring me to Grandpas house EVER because I'm not going to put myself in that situation. This made me mad because my thing is, if your parent is the one that started it, you should defend you child. If you don't, don't be surprised when the child defends himself. I don't want your father to say some out-of-the-blue disrespectful stuff and you like "Well, that's my Daddy."
I guess this convo boils down to: Do you feel that I have the right to be mad?
Now for the 2nd question
This is sort of another one that happened about 5 hrs ago in 6th hour (in school). It's this guy that's in my group in Culinary Class (forced into that class, by the way) and he's totally disrespectful to me. The first few days, I let it go because I try to give people a chance to be respectful. You never know, the next day may be better.
Today, Mrs. Dupree asks for one person in each group to get books. I was unaware (or forgot for a better term) that the books was right behind me and then a friend told me. I turned around and didn't get them because it was crowded and I wanted to wait until everybody got their books so I can grab 5 books in one swoop rather than getting one at a time because everyone trying to get books.
This guys yells at me, "Get the books!" Now, this told me very quickly that this was just our friendship, meaning, this is just how he's going to talk to me. I told him to get his book if he needs it so fast. He get's one then I swoop up 4 for myself and the other three. I was so mad already and I said "You're an a**hole." By Monday, I will not be in that group and what makes it worse is that I didn't even want the class; I was forced by my Mom to take it.
Now that I got my personal stuff out there.
Now, I'm sure everywhere has met that one old person that thinks they own the world and can be disrespectful because they're old. People always say "That's what is wrong with this generation. They don't respect the old." I always see this comments on a meme that says "I respect people who respect me." People always wanna say "Respect is earned." Which is bullcrap because you should respect everybody regardless if you know them or not. Even so, your age shouldn't earn you respect, it should be your actions. If I see a young person being disrespectful to an old person BUT the old person is who pulled the first punch; I'm not getting into it unless someone intervenes and protects the old person. I believe the victim should be defended regardless of the attacker's age.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
How do you feel about guys who have crushes or imaginary relationships with game characters? I will confess, I have a huge crush on Morrigan from Dragon Age, Merill from Dragon Age 2, and Juri from street fighter.
Some people say "It's due to the sexualization of women in games!" and I'm like "Really?" Of course, you have mean ones who say things like "They're losers who can't get a girlfriend so they look at a 3D girl on the screen and fantasize about her."
We all know girls do it too, but guys who date them have their 3D crushes too.
I think 3D crushes are fine. If you have a gf/bf, you obviously don't put your 3D crush at a higher priority because that would be weird.
What is your opinion on this subject?
What would you do if you had a friend that had a 3D crush?
I was watching a "What would you do?" episode and came across this topic.
If I pay a lot of money at a high-end restaurant, I expect a peaceful meal with whoever. High-end restaurants are usually suppose to be romantic. It's a place to go with your significant other, usually, on a date. Parents shouldn't be bringing their babies to such a restaurant; for me, it ruins the environment and atmosphere. If it was a fast food or family restaurant, then I wouldn't care.
Vectra, what if they can't afford a babysitter?
If you can afford to go to a high-end restaurant, you can afford a babysitter. On top of that, there is many who you could probably talk to. This includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, neighbors, brothers, sisters, church group, daycare, etc. If you don't trust anybody then fine but DO NOT bring your child to a high-end restaurant.
Vectra, how come you don't eat at home?
I don't want to. I don't have a child and I shouldn't be sacrificing my wants because a parent decides to bring a noisy baby to a high-end restaurant. What if a couple did hire a babysitter only to come to a restaurant where another couples brings a noisy baby and ruins their experience.
So you're saying that, if parents can not, for whatever reason, afford a babysitter, they should not go to a high-end restaurant with their kid?
That is exactly what I'm saying. They had the baby and they should've been prepared to make some sacrifices for that child. They need to re-schedule until they can afford a babysitter.
What would you do if you seen this at a high-end restaurant?
I would politely go to the parents and ask them to do something about the baby because it's bothering me. If them or anyone say something like "They're a family." or "It's not bothering anybody." or anything like that, I would just ask for my bill and leave. I'm not sitting through an hour of a noisy child while I'm trying to eat my dinner in peace.
How do you feel?
What would you do if you seen this?
I was watching "What would you do?" on youtube and I found a very interesting topic about the different methods in punishing your child.
Talking to them
If I became a parent, I would be this type. I'm a strong believer in avoidance of violence if it get's the job done. I hear parents who say "I whoop and ask questions later." but, to me, it just seems totally unnecessary at times. Even today, I still don't get about the "ask questions later." part of that saying. I just think it's wrong that you don't let the kid, at least, justify himself/herself before you go in a rampage and spank them. What if he/she did it for justifiable reasons? Now you just look like a evil parent who the kid, depending on the kid, might fear.
I know just talking to them will not always work. I just feel that a parent should try this method and by talking, I mean by getting to the root of the problem. Why is they doing what they doing or why did they do what they did? Some parents, I feel, don't want to put in the time and effort and just resorts to spanking which can lead to retaliation. With talking, you must also deliver it right. Your tone, body language, facial expressions, all of that plays into it.
It is effective when punishing children but, like I said before, it shouldn't be your first resort. After a while, a child will get use to the spankings and no longer care. I'm not saying spankings aren't necessary because they are times where talking is not getting through the child. I rarely get in trouble so I rarely got spankings, even as a kid.
Just like talking, spanking doesn't always work. At this point, I would suggest showing them what would or could happen if they keep doing it. For example, let's say your kids likes to steal things from other people, you would have them spend a night in jail. If they have this mindset of "It won't happen to me." then what happens, happens. You can have strict rules against but if something happens to them, they can't say you didn't warn them.
Wearing a sign like "I steal and lie"
In my opinion, in no circumstance, should a kid wear a sign in public saying something like this. I am 99.9% positive that this will never work on a child. From here on out, you will be labeled as "the enemy." On the "What would you do?" video, a black woman said that it was hard to raise a kid in the hood. Saying things like this is needed and necessary and it's not. Both sides of my family was raised in the hood and do you know what worked? Spanking, talking, everything but this.
I know every kid isn't the same; some kids are more stubborn, others are more arrogant. Humiliating them in public will only created hatred, retaliation, and you could potentially ruin their social lives. I heard a few stories where parents chose this method and it led their kid(s) to commit suicide because their social live was destroyed. Punishment should always be kept in the house.
You could say "At least they'll stop doing it." You are their best friend as well; they should be able to trust you. If you do this, they might stop, but now you have a kid that hates you, doesn't trust you with anything anymore, depressed, bitter, feels isolated, teased a lot, potentially can get dirty looks from his school, and can't get any friends.
From what I've just mentioned, there are potential characteristics that can STILL lead them to going to jail.
They hate you; this will lead to them doing aggressive acts towards, you'll call the cops, and now they're in jail.
They don't trust you; when they have a problem, no matter what it is, they won't trust you because they feel anger when they see you. Trust me, when you humiliate someone, they can and possibly will take that with them for the rest of their lives depending on the scale of humility you gave them.
They're depressed; from experience, I know how this feel. They won't care about their lives anymore. Once the fear of death or punishment is no longer a fear, the kid will be uncontrollable. You can't say anything because you just humiliated them to the public; pictures of them with it is probably all over social media.
They're bitter; an angry kid is hard to control because you have to come in a soft approach. Which can be hard if you humiliated them. Bitter people will have a great deal of job losses, authority altercations., etc.
As you know, all these characteristic go hand-in-hand which is bad. Of course, some kids won't have all of the listed characters but I absolutely guarantee you that they will have at least one of the following and they'll probably carry it around them for as long as they live.
As you see, I feel strongly against the last one. I categorize that as emotional abuse because that's messing with their emotions. I am never ever for parents who use such methods and say "it's to teach my kid." That is only going to lead to retaliation. "I'll do it again." You already humiliated him once so humiliating him again is no big deal; he's probably internet famous right now.
What do you think?
Nisexual - Attracted to nobody
What do you think of Nisexuality? What would you think, say, and/or do if a friend is or became a nisexual?
Here are my thoughts on it. It is very rare to find a nisexual person but they do exist. I think Nisexual is okay; it's just that, when you tell people, they aren't used to hearing that. If I had a nisexual friend, I would think nothing of it. Then again, I might be a bit biased because I'm a nisexual.
To make the story short, I gave up on dating. Got depressed afterwards and eventually lost passion for love, girls, and sex altogether. You guys are the only ones that currently know so you can feel special. I still want kids, but that's a story for another time.
Back to Nisexuality. I can see where it would be a problem if the entire world decided to be nisexuals. Luckily, nisexuality isn't common and so few people are, the word is almost unknown. Due to it being so rare, I can't really say much about it.
What do you think of Nisexuality?
What would you think, say, and/or do if a friend is or became a nisexual?
I normally don't do gender debates because they can get out of hand but I think this forum can handle it. Not to mention, I friended all or almost all people in the forums so I know you can handle it.
Mom and I got into a debate about it yesterday so I wanted to know what you guys thought.
Mom thinks that men just sit on their butts when they get home from work. For example, she say that men say "I work at a factory." which is implying that they make a lot of money (which would not be a lie) but Mom's answer is "So, I can do that too." I don't think she gets how hard it is to work at places like that. Anywho, it's not like men only work; they do trash, law mowing, yard work, etc.
If a Man's job isn't enough, then a woman's job shouldn't be enough neither. Genders spend too much time saying 'Women don't do this." or "Men don't do this."
I do find something quite contradicting. I'm not specifically talking about my mom; I'm talking about some women. They say "Men don't do anything!" but refuses to pay the bill during dates. "I can pay my own house bills!" really? But you can't pay for your meal?
Due to this strong division between Genders ever since females started working, they population of males split into two groups. Neomasculinity and Sexodus. I, for one, is a sexodus.
Neomasculine - Men who have to go above and beyond to impress the normal woman. Since women "claim" men are not needed, men have to go WAY above their means to impress women.
Note: I'm not talking about all women.
Sexodus - Men who doesn't even try anymore. From a video I've heard. he claimed that most of them played video games all day. Now, he wasn't saying that gamers are sexodus; he was saying sexodus are gamers. These men threw in the towel and has no intentions in getting married.
This led to the question: "Why is men no longer marrying women?"
My mom suggest it's because men has no reason to since there is sex before marriage and that men are just gonna have baby mamas. I swear, Mom and my aunt are not that far away from having the label "People bashers." Notice how I said people and not men or women.
Studies show that it's because by women working and getting money, the laws still state that the men should STILL give the money to the woman. This is what sparked the division in men AND women as there are women who believe a woman's job is at the house. Due to this, marriage dropped tremendously.
Officials from places or whatnot states that the # of marriages is dropping at a very alarming rate.
Just so we are clear, from what I've read and heard, the problem isn't women getting an education, or even a job. It's about the lack of balance due to things shifting. A woman getting educated was no problem since, of course, the father could always die at unexpected times. It's due to SOME women making more $$$ than the guy as it's a natural instinct for the guy to want to be the breadwinner. It's not because "Society tells us that" because humans were like this for a VERY long time before society became a thing. You can't say "Well, the lion female blah blah blah" because we are not lions; we are humans. Just because an animal can go toe-to-toe fist-fight with a Gorilla doesn't mean we can.
I'm not saying it's the women's fault because that would be unrealistic. I'm saying that, due to this change, society began to develop all sorts of problems dealing with marriages, laws, and gender roles. Of course, the whole standards thing came about during conversations like these. Now, this opinion is purely on what I heard as women my age, typically, aren't in careers.
Some women want a man who has around the same or more $$$. Of course, if you get a female Bill Gates, that would be extremely hard and almost every guy in the world will be rejected.
Some women may blow it in the mans face during an argument like " make the money here!" These women used what men (that they hated in the past) used against them.
Then there are some women who just don't give a crap.
I will restate my opinion and say I believe that the woman should stay at home while the man goes out and work.
How do you feel about this subject?
I believe prisoners should be allowed to donate organs. The main concern is that prisoners will expect a lesser sentence for doing so. I believe should get no rewards such as lesser sentence.
I, personally, have mixed feelings for donating organs. People don't live very long after the surgery, Since most of the world likes it, I believe prisoners should be allowed too. The disease rate in prison is better than some other places and diseases can be everywhere. Just check the giver multiple times then, once you feel comfortable enough with the results, give it to the receiver. The waiting list is huge and since prisons carry a lot of people, why not use it to eliminate a huge chunk of the waiting list.
How do you feel about this?
Thanks to my fellow friend, KilloZapit, here's an interesting topic.
Should unsupervised children be allowed on the forums?
I believe they should, but then again, I don't like people all up in my business... unless I feel comfortable with you doing it. Like I wouldn't want my mom constantly in my business.
If parents were into everything the kid was doing, he couldn't say what he want or whatever. Meaning, some people don't friend their parents because they would have to think about stuff they post. On here, I will have to constantly censor what I'm saying and I wouldn't be able to open up.
The main reason I love the forums is because I'm, somewhat, anonymous . Having my mom looking at everything I post will kinda defeat the purpose of being anonymous. The point of being anonymous is so you can do or say whatever without people knowing the "physical" you. If my mom was to check, I couldn't be me and the point of anonymous is that you can be yourself.
Some may argue that, that can lead to things the parent would've been aware of, if the parent intervened. Nothing would make anything perfect. You wouldn't be able to find a perfect solution because if you're too protective, the relationship between the kid and the parent will slowly dwindle until it is non-existent. If the parent isn't protective at all, the kid loves them but doesn't respect, and some kids will hate their parents for this when they get older.
What do you think?
Do you think Society will be so much into technology, that people will stop going outside?
This was a debate between my parents and I. I dont believe society will get to the point where people will no longer go outside. They believe technology will replace everything but I dont believe that.
To be honest, i think theyre getting it confused with people who arent an outside person. Conversations like these always boil down to gaming. Gaming isnt the world and many people knows that. Technology isnt going to "poison" the world.
People believe people dont read because of technology when, in reality, some people don't like reading. Seriously, it seems people are confusing it with their own personal likes and dislikes.
What do you guys think?
Note: There is a double question.
I was on yahoo(like usual) and I came across a very crazy story. This guy is 47 yrs old, never had a girlfriend, never kissed a girl, is a virgin, and... yeah. What's crazy is that he got rejected 100 times. Literally, he got rejected 100 times exactly.
Vectra, what would you do/say?
I have a rule. Once you reach 30 yrs old and never had a girlfriend, you should just quit. After a certain amount of years after trying and waiting, you should quit. Like me, I'm stopping at 30... maybe 35. Anywho, the reason I say that is because from what I hear a lot, women that age don't want to date a guy who has no idea what he's doing since he has never been in a relationship.
For one, I don't understand how he got 100 rejections and still sane. I will go completely insane. Vectra wouldn't even be Vectra no more. I already have 15 rejections. He got 85 more rejections. Makes you wanna meet him cuz you like "100? How the h*** did you get 100 rejections?" I don't know, I would be in a fetal position, in the corner, door is locked, sitting in my own tears. I mean what can you do after 30? If you never had a girlfriend, your chances of getting one(from what I've heard) get's slimmer as you go past 30. What that mean? You doomed to be single after a certain age?
If so, I only have 15 years left. People say wait til after college. That would make me 22-ish so I will have roughly 8 years to get one? That sounds like a very dark and scary road. I hope Yahoo is wrong cuz that road seems like it's worst than death. By then, I be begging God to take me in.
Note: By the way, anyone who knows me, I'm going to take your advice and wait until after college UNLESS a girl asks me out before then.
ANYWHO, here is the double questions.
If this guy was your friend, what would be your advice? Is he doomed? Or is there still a chance?
Do you believe when a guy reaches 30(or past 30), and never had a girlfriend, his chances get slimmer?
I found a sad story on Yahoo.
This guy was single and ALL his friends had a significant other. They would go to clubs and stuff but he always ended up being alone. The day after Valentine, when they're saying what they did, his stands their hurting every second he is there. He said he had a girlfriend but you have a feeling that this girl is imaginary. He would say he's going to the movies with her when he's really going alone(You've seen him the day he said that). You always say "Can we meet her?" but he seems to always come up with reasons why she can't come.
If this girl is imaginary... what would you do?
I was on yahoo and the topic was about the friend-zone and relationship standards.
Some people say women's standards are too high and some people think men's standards are too low. Which one is it? Do the women lower and the guys higher til it's even? or does everyone have ridiculously low or high standards?
I have no exact opinion when it comes to that. When I was rejected(13 times), they never told me why. Was I not par with their standards or was it different reasons? What was their standards? Was they ridiculously high? The world may never know.
From what I heard and seen, I will have to say "some" women's standards are a bit too high. I'M NOT SAYING GUYS DON'T HAVE HIGH STANDARDS! Sometimes, guys do. I just see it with girls way more often. I know the whole "survival of the fittest" but like, that's basically saying the ones who aren't the fittest will never get a girl You could say "They can change." What if they cant?
Let's take me for example. I literally can not gain any more than 114.6 Ibs. I can only lift 80 pounds. I'm 5ft 11in. I don't have enough meat to gain muscle and I eat A LOT. I have a great personality but apparently, that's ever enough. My standards are medium. You have to be attractive(duh) and you can't be fat. I'll go from skinny to thick but not fat. Yes, there is a difference. I'm personally not attracted to fat people. She also has to have a good personality. Not perfect but good.
Anywho, back to the matter at hand, I do believe a lot of women's standards are too high. I was going through yahoo and one thing that I found interesting was that a lot said "We were taught to wait for guys who are like the ones in disney movies." This could be cuz I'm a guy but please explain that for me. You're basically saying you will ONLY date a guy JUST like disney guys.
I also heard girls don't like "too nice" guys so how does that work out? Disney guys = the idea of too nice. O_O what???
Now, before anyone see this as angry or whatnot, I am not a masculinist.
There is the argument that a guy's standards are too low. I kind of have no say in this only because a lot of guys I know don't have low standards. Their's are like mine but unless mine are low, their's aren't low. If my standards is what girls consider "low" then maybe their's are extremely high. I like to see what ya'll think.
Are women's standards too high and is men's standards too low? Is it even? Should it stay the way it is?
Did you know the friend-zone number is 96? Why? I'm pretty sure we know what 69 is so...
Anywho, 96 is the story of my life. I believe the friend-zone exist cuz I've been in it... 13 times(out of 13). Friend-zone is real for both guys and girls. I will say it's a bit more real for guys since guys are usually the ones to make the first move. I know many girls who refuse to make the first move so... it's more real for guys. Friend-zone is like a game. You lose once, no big deal. Shrug it off and move on. After you keep losing and ypu're not winning, well a person's confidence goes down and now they're depressed. There are a few types of Friend-Zonians.
Deniers - These are guys who say there isn't a friend-zone, attempting to impress girls, but still gets friend-zoned.
Thick-skinned - Those are guys who was always friend-zoned but always shrugged it off. *Claps*
Thin-skinned - Those are guys who are always friend-zoned and get's depressed.(partly me)
The outsiders - Guys who really believe there isn't a friend-zone because they rarely get rejected.
The non-knowers - Who doesn't believe in friend-zone and got rejected a lot.
The Veteran - Were always friend-zoned and gave up on love altogether.(partly me)
Do you believe the friend-zone is real?
Note: I might be a bit biased since I was rejected 13 out of 13 times.
I was scrolling through Yahoo Answers and came across questions about this.
We're going to talk about the following...
Should parents force their kid to socialize?
Should parents be a part of their kid's love life?
Does it matter if you have internet or real life friends?
Note: They're kind of combined so it'll be as long as any normal thing I write.
To be honest, I don't think parents should force their kids to socialize. Let's say your kid is not a social person. If they fine with it, what's the big deal? Some parents don't like the whole "internet friend" idea. They say things like "They could be lying.", "You don't really know them.", or my favorite "You can't have any memories with them". The 1st two go hand-to-hand. It's the internet so you'll just have to decide if you trust them. There is ways to found out if they're lying. It's not like there aren't ways to find out. For example, Facebook, if you are talking to someone, they been on Facebook for a long time, and their only picture they ever took was their profile picture, then it's probably a fake. Only exception is if they are new to Facebook.
Then the "You don't get memories from internet friends." I hear from time to time. That's actually false. I know a 30-ish yr old friend name Paige. She has a few kids, she's married, she's frugal, etc. Paige and I have memories online. I also have another friend named Jay, we make jokes a lot. He loves wolves, he like supernatural type movies and stuff. You can have legit internet friends. The real question is do you trust them?
One more thing, if your kid don't have friends. Make sure you're not the reason. Let me use my mom as an example of what I mean.
My mom has a set of rules. My mom refuses to change them so I stopped asking her. Note: Some rules are understandable
My mom MUST meet my friend's parents for me to go over.
If a friend comes without the parents meeting my mom, I can't go to my friend's house.
Can't invite no girls over without mom here.
No girls in bedroom. If so, door must be wide open
1 & 2 are the main reasons it's hard to be with friends. I always have to go out somewhere and can never just chill at my house or someone elses. Imma see if the rules can be changed but anywho, Parents, make sure you ain't the reason for your kid's anti-socialism.
Note: I might be a bit biased when it comes to Internet Friends because my only friends is you guys and a few on Facebook.
I believe Parents shouldn't be in their kids love life. Then again, I don't like my Parents to be in my love life. Especially parents, like my mom, that says "Child love is fake love". You don't want a person, that calls your love fake, all in your love life. I think it's weird(could be me) when people ask "Is she pretty?". No, I like dating girls who are unattractive to me O.o??? Then the deep questions like "Why do you like her?" "What makes her special to you?" Those questions require me to open my bag of feelings and I don't open my bag of feelings to just anyone.
Then again, I don't like my parents in my social life neither. I notice with a lot of parents, it's never "just" questions. Or at least, not with mine. It's questions with a speech afterwards. When I was younger(not much anymore), my parents, especially my Dad, will get mad if I don't go out. When I lived with my grandparents, Dad and them made me go outside every single day and I HATED it! Every single day, they'll give me a speech about being social. It was like that until summer was over and I went back home(thank god).
Important Note: If anyone seen the "Date Formula" debate. My Mom did tell guys they were just dating. I guess I missed that tad bit of info(I'm still not doing it tho). I'm glad I was wrong tho
Real life or Internet friends. Does it matter?
Parents involved in their kid's social life?
Parents force their kids to socialize?
What do you think?
I personally don't care about oversexualized characters. By oversexualized, I mean in personality and/or appearance. I picked a few characters as examples to know what I mean.
Note: I might be a bit biased on the subject since I love boobs :wub:
People say her boobs are overly exaggerated. I'm not saying they aren't, but does it matter? I mean, does it really make you that uncomfortable?
Some people say her fighting style is oversexualized. Picture
For those who don't know, she's in that stance to distract the enemy while fighting them. I'm not saying it's not sexual but who cares. Don't play the game if it makes you uncomfortable. I personally haven't played it but I heard and seen videos about it so... yeah.
This isn't necessarily oversexualized because if I'm correct, that is an actual style used in Asia. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's an actual style in Asia. Her boobs are kind of out there but unless you're constantly looking at them, they shouldn't bother you as her cleavage isn't as big as Mai's.
The outfit kind of goes with her personality. Meaning, she has the dominatrix type of fighting style and personality. People say Soul Calibur should stop making her boobs bigger because she is very sexualized. She has a dominatrix type personality so you would assume she would have a sexualized outfit AND Ivy uses her boobs when attacking. Not literally like *smack face with boob* but she uses the weight of them for her attacks so it seems necessary to have her like that.
I heard a lot of people talking about her rack. Some believe her outfit is oversexualized. I still stand and say, who cares. Some females have big boobs. It would look weird if they gave her armor or a turtle-neck. Also, that is how Greek outfits look back in medieval times(If I'm correct which I'm pretty sure I am).
Juri Han, no doubt, has a sexual personality like licking her lips a lot(sexually) or saying things like "Give me all you got. Try to break me." She's in a M-rated game. Nuff said. This might be really biased since Juri is my favorite character.
People complained her outfit is too sexual. The Dragon Age series itself has sex in it and is an M-rated game. Nuff said
Now, I have no problem with sexualized games since I'm a sexual person. Sexualized characters will always exist and they aren't going anywhere because if they are erased from existence, their fans is gonna riot on the internet and probably on the streets. It's not like non-sexual games are hidden. You can easily find them. If a person wants to play a game where a guy is shooting people while having "fun" with his girl then let the person play it. I don't see the point in trying censor games like "No games should be sexual" because know you're effecting games I like to play. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dragon Age, GTA, Dante's Inferno, and games like that wouldn't even exist because someone felt uncomfortable seeing it.
Don't look at it then. You ain't forced to look at the screen when it comes on. Heck, why you there playing it or watching someone play it? Just saying, just because you don't like huge boobs covering the screen doesn't mean I don't like it neither cuz I do. Even if the boobs wasn't, I don't care about the whole sexual situation. If boobs is on the screen then I guess they gonna be on the screen. They don't bother me nor make me feel uncomfortable because they are games. They're just video games.
As I said, I'm probably biased since I'm a sexual person but I just don't see the point of arguing about it. It's not like the ESRB, the government, or anyone is gonna do anything about it so let it go. If it bothers you that much then you have two options. One, look for games that are not sexualized or two, don't play games at all. I just really don't see it as a problem which is why I don't get why people fuss over it.
I think I'm kinda biased which is why I'm asking for ya'll opinions.
What ya'll think?
This was a debate between Dad and I a few years ago. I don't believe in the death penalty as I believe no one deserves death. My dad got mad and said I love people too much. Just so you can get the extent of what I mean...
My dad asked "If someone killed your mom, you don't think they should give the death penalty?"
I said "No."
Then he said "What if he killed me and your mom?"
I said "It's still no."
Then he went on saying I don't care about them or appreciate them but that's not the case. I'm going to thoroughly tell you why I do not believe in the death penalty.
I believe no one deserves death. I'm not saying if someone pulled a knife, just let him/her stab you. Of course, self-defense doesn't follow these rules but if you happen to arrest them and send them to court, they should not get the death penalty. There are better ways to stop crime than killing people. Some states and countries do it but they still have a decent crime rate. I believe there are far better ways than death. Life in prison is just like the death penalty except that the death penalty is instant. There are rarely anyone who survives life in prison and to be honest, life in prison is actually worse.
In prison, they get raped, harassed, assaulted, and many other things for 25 years(life in prison). Here's a quote that I just came up with.
"There is evil people in the world but they are still people, not dogs. If we let our emotions and minds stoop so low as to calling them dogs, then we are no better than them. Evil people see others as dogs too" - Vectra
I believe no one has the right to put someone to death unless it's in a last second, self-defense situation. If they are arrested and is in court, about to be sentenced, the death penalty should not be an option. Two wrong's don't make a right. I have another quote that I heard from a show that has good meaning.
"Justifying doesn't make it right, it just make it seem right." - 7th Heaven
Justifying it by saying "Well, he was a murderer!" only makes it seem right. Vengeance is easy, especially when anger is tagged along. The hardest thing to do is to do what's right. The 2nd hardest thing is to live with it, if you do the wrong thing. There has been many times, on the news, where a criminal got the death penalty. Guess what? The family thought they would feel better. At the end, they didn't feel any better.
It's like a bow and arrow.
When you're shot with an arrow, you can take it out, but you still feel the pain of the arrow. Just because the source is gone doesn't mean the pain will go away with it. It's not a light bulb.
This is probably why I love MLK Jr. more than Malcom X.
Killing them isn't going to make it better. You will have rapists, murderers, and thieves. I believe the world has the potential to be purely good but I believe sentencing people to the death chair should not be on the to-do list.
What if someone was falsely accused? If they were sentenced Life in Prison, they can get out for free if found innocent later. If they were sentenced death... they dead; the man that was killed isn't coming back. Now a family is scarred due to a court system error. I don't believe in the death penalty but I definitely would not trust the system with such power. I know the court system would probably never be flawless but would that be more of a reason to never have the death penalty legalized?
I know jails and prisons, USA specifically, are getting full but that shouldn't equate to "Kill all the criminals." I'm not saying free them all. I believe the sentencing system is a bit outrageous on SOME laws, like drug dealing. They should go to jail or prison but not for 20+ years. The fact that Jails and Prisons are full are partially the citizens AND the court system's fault. It's probably 60/40 (Citizen's fault/Court's fault).
Before I'm done, I wanna ask a question to all who read this. Don't forget to comment your opinions.
By the court system being flawed, do you trust it with the power to kill people?
I have two questions that kinda has no point being separate posts.
Can a game be too emotional? By emotional, I mean to the point of almost crying. I would say no because the satisfaction of killing the one who did it(assuming it's an enemy) will be so much sweeter. Do you think a game can be too sad and/or emotional?
About the boss(s) and enemy(s), do you believe that an enemy can be too evil? Meaning, their actions are so horrific that you are angry and sometimes wanna cry when the main character is crying. I would say... idk. I kinda wanna say yes but like above, it will make the final victory so much sweeter. So what you think?
Do you think a game can be too sad and/or emotional?
Do you believe that an enemy can be too evil?
Note: I didn't know if they would be considered the same question so... yeah.
I'm not talking about fantasy violence. I'm talking about blood and gore and intense violence. I don't believe they should be banned. Then again, I love violent games. This is how I feel about the subject.
Just because you don't like violent games, don't mess up everyone else's fun. There were a few comments I saw...
"I don't want my kids seeing that." - There's going to be a lot of things you don't want yo kid to see. I'm pretty sure games is the lowest in yo list.
"It makes people more violent. Study's show this." - I know there are study's but I don't know if they're accurate. Hear me out tho. People who's violent is obviously going to like violent games. How do they know if they wasn't violent before the violent games appeared. I mean, if a person doesn't like violence, there's a good chance they're not going to play violent games so you're not gonna catch them playing a violent game. I don't doubt that it could be true, because there is a chance it is true, but I'm having a hard time saying that it's absolutely accurate and true. Maybe someone in this forum can shed some light on this.
"If they won't ban it, they shouldn't allow minors to buy violent games" - Uh, no one is in charge of that. Let's say there was a law that passed and it said "No minors can not buy M or A rated games." So what if the parents bought it for them?
"There should be a law that parents can't buy M or A rated games for kids." - What if the parent bought it for themselves. So you're saying they can't play it unless the kid is not in the house? Their 16 yr old is around so the parent can't play some Call of Duty?
Note: Now, I do believe you should not be playing A rated games around yo kids or even buying them for yo kids. I'm not that crazy to give a kid an A rated game.
Note: I understand if we're talking about 5 yr olds or 7 yr olds playing M and A rated games but we're talking about kids in general. And why should I pay because of parents who have bad parenting skills when it comes to games?
"Kids think it's okay to kill because they don't get punished in games." - Really? I've never met or heard that ever happening. I remember ONE time it happened. It was the parents fault tho. They saw the changes and didn't do anything. You can't punish all kids because one kid decided to do what he saw on TV. Whenever you hear about a kid killing someone, he never says "I did it because I seen it on Call of Duty. I revived a guy and thought I could do that in real life." I've NEVER heard something like that.
"If they were banned, there would be less crime" - Really?... Really? A guy decided to rob a bank because he seen it on Grand Theft Auto? Really? I seriously doubt banning video games will do anything to crime rates.
Now, you do have extremist in this group of people. Some people believe games shouldn't exist AT ALL. Think if that was to change tomorrow. All countries said "Hey, everyone! Games are banned. If we see you playing one, we're going to arrest you for violating the law." Think about all the homeless people that is about to be birthed from that. What about the workers and owners of game companies? Do they lose everything they worked because YOU wasn't comfortable with video games? Do all gamers all of a sudden throw away all their console, controllers, 50+ games because YOU don't like them?
I don't care whether you like it or not,I'm not gonna stop doing what makes me happy because you don't like it. Do you know how much games cost? In the USA, a console cost roughly 300 - 400 dollars and an average game cost 20 - 60 dollars. That money doesn't come out of thin air. I'm not throwing away 100's of dollars because you don't like them. Don't play them.
"I don't want my kids to play them." Then censor them then. "They gonna get older and play them." They grown, you can't rule they life for them. Stop tryna plan yo kid's entire future because it's their future. 9 times out of 10, they ain't gonna follow what you have planned for them. They gonna follow what they have planned for themselves.
Listen, I know I'm a kid but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that yo kid is probably not going to follow you because they wanna find their own way. If they need yo help, they'll come to you. You can't force help on someone because at the end, they're going to revert back to their own ways.
Anyways, back to the subject at hand, if you don't like violent video games then don't play them. Don't try to make reasons for them to be banned. I don't care if you have kids, don't buy your kids video games then. If they play it when they get older, there is nothing you can do. Now, when I say this I'm not saying it in a rude way. You need to deal with it.
I play violent games and I know it's wrong to kill people. Do you know why? My parents raised me that way. Don't blame the game for stuff yo kid did. You should've told him that it's wrong to kill people. Yo kids don't get knowledge from the sky. You have to tell them "It's wrong to kill people. You can go to jail." "Mommy, what's jail?" and from there, you taught yo kid not to kill so when they're playing violent video games, you know they ain't gonna go into nut job mode and start shootin up people. Things are always going to influence yo kids, it's yo job to teach them and hope they make the right decision. Even without video games you still have thugs, murderers, rapists, serial killers; you will have all them still feeding into the crime rate. They are going to exist forever whether we like it or not. There is always going to be sick people and it's yo job to teach them. Not the video games job. Video games are there to entertain you.Yes, some games will have life lessons in them but it ain't they job to parent yo kid.
*deep breathe* That felt good.
What is your opinion?