Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
#209, #StandUpLocust
User ID: 2418
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
5hr ago
I’d go back to when I was a child and steal the red Jolly Rancher instead of the green one from the candy store.
Dior Sauvage Elixir is my favorite, though it’s widely considered a “universal douchebag fragrance,” because it’s used by so many party boys in the club scene. It was first described to me as smelling like “McDonald’s curry sauce;” lol. They also say Prada Luna Rossa Carbon is the closest smelling casual fragrance to it but IMO it smells nothing like Sauvage.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
5hr ago
I’ve tried Vipassana before and know a good amount about meditative practices in the conventional religious context it fell out of (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I can’t say I ever became a serious practitioner in any way but one theme that repeats from it over and over is to reduce the attempts to over-intellectualize meditation, because it’s one of the surest ways to lose yourself in the cognitive phenomenology and experience it’s meant to bring you toward.
One of the most popular forms of psychotherapy here in the west is a regimen that bears a close resemblance to common forms of meditation, that was developed by Albert Ellis; called Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and its offshoot Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) (1, 2). I’ve found that tends to be more accessible to a lay western audience and has an easier grasp to understand.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
7hr ago
Is it somehow a sin to look for other things that may have motivated them? The causal explanation may not end simply with their identification in a particular community.
I have a stronger drive and appetite on all levels than a lot of people I know. Whether it’s food, sleep or sex; and it took me a very long time to learn how to control it. My father used to call it my “obsessive need to consume.”
It makes sense why you would tolerate someone’s faults when you’re in love with them. Forgiving people for their sins and mistakes is part of my charter and it absolutely doesn’t come easy. But we shouldn’t be quick to associate people’s mistakes, faults and imperfections with abuse.
I was never one of those people who was afraid to be alone. I’ve learned how to live on nothing but my own two feet and have practiced it for decades. I used to tell people “if you can’t tolerate being alone, it’s only because you’re in bad company.” (i.e. you suck as a human being). If I woke up tomorrow morning to a ghost city, with everyone having disappear but me, left to wander the streets, it wouldn’t cause me much sorrow or grief. I’d say to myself, “damn, it sucks that so-and-so isn’t here to see this…,” and I’d miss my family and friends, but I’d get along just fine by myself.
In love, I was raised according to the conventional norms and stereotypes of the 20th century. Marriage is about love, primarily in the context of family life and family formation. I don’t want a “business partner,” or “partner in crime,” or be the “hang-around-er,” that never left. In a relationship, as a man, I want a wife and kids. That’s my purpose that I was raised and built for. I know what that entails, I know what it demands of me and requires me to sacrifice, I know it’s a lifelong endeavor that you can’t back out of and I accept the costs. For me it’s always been an easy choice because I think I have a more correct frame of mind than a lot of other people do.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
23hr ago
1.) All the jobs posted on the previous post fell through, minus IT Support for the school. The Building maintaince company gave me a really unprofessional and sad email, Saying that they filled the role, despite promising me a final interview previously (this was like, 3 days after the 2nd round interview)
Consider it a blessing if this is how they lead with things. This company clearly failed your test.
2.) I've technically been given an offer, however, its 21 an hour with no benefits. Better than 17 an hour part time. Not ideal (but i accepted anyway).
A good way to step up regardless. Congratulations!
3.) I had an excellent interview for a Tier 2 position at a Mortgage company. Dude tried to sell me on the company for atleast half the interiview, he really likes me! Its 27 an hour with benefits. Im crossing my fingers and hoping it wont be another "we filled this role" situation. He says HR should hook me up with a final interview early next week.
Do keep things posted. Really hope all goes well for you.
If all other women are doing things to grab attention it is difficult for women who don't.
Most men I know are attracted to a woman who doesn't have a vain desire to stand out above everyone else. I certainly am not attracted to attention whores. The more she acts like one the less interested I become overtime. When I was in high school there was a very attractive girl who liked me who lost me on behavior alone, pulling shit like this. I really have no idea how some of them manage to think that leading like a ho is something that’s going to inspire attraction and affection. It’s disgusting and repulsive.
The irony is the men that are out to aid and assist women's interests are the ones women hate on the most. You may reject the idea of their complete ignorance in being able to detect the quality traits and attributes of those they choose to deal with, but they absolutely are out to convince you of precisely that. I literally can't tell you how bad some of their choices are.
You want to know if a man is a bad catch? Simple. I can tell you that easily. If a man is tatted like the underpass on the 10 freeway, that's a clue. If a man has been through rehab (or worse yet, hasn't been through rehab), that's a clue. If a man is 30 years old and hasn't had consistent employment, maybe you're with someone who just wants to sponge off you. If a man is physically threatening or harming you, there is never a valid reason that justifies that kind of behavior. Hell, I can tell you if he's a good catch as a teenager without ever seeing him in person. Give me his high school report card and I can sort this out in 20 minutes. Just listen to the kind of people you come across. How ignorant can you be to not see things like this?
You nailed it. That's exactly the problem. For someone to step in and begin regulating social behaviors or rolling back norms to generations prior, that would amount to "telling them how to live their lives." They're not ready to have this conversation. The kind of solution they want to this problem is the kind of solution that would prevent them from having a voice at all in the first place. The only time you'll ever be able to blame me for the way I am as a man is when I'm making choices on your behalf. Otherwise, this is on you. You're the one making the choice. I've never been for unbridled freedom in the case of either gender, but what's an occasional problem for every other man has become an epidemic for woman writ large and there's only one group of people responsible steering the ship.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
When I look around at a lot of couples, I see examples of people who I think have a wrong headed attitude to what a relationship is and should be. Two crackheads can stay together forever, but that isn't the kind of thing that makes up a good relationship. Even mutual interests isn't sufficient for the things that matter. At some point, the honeymoon phase is over. You know all their stories. You're with them at their best and you're also going to slog through things with them at their worst. Just because people are in relationships doesn't at all mean they're happy or functional and fulfilled. And frankly when it comes to your obligations to your wife/husband/children, your happiness can kiss my ass and go right out the window as far as I'm concerned. If the choice is between your family or your happiness, there's only 1 correct answer to that question; and only in healthy relationships are those 2 the same thing.
Most guys I know don't want what it is you're describing. They are intelligent, industrious and very hard working people who want a fairly simple life and were raised in and for a social model that's been out of vogue for almost a century now. We no longer live in a family society. We live in an individual society that isn't conducive to the former. Either economically or socially.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
It's an option yes, but it's not a scalable solution for a lot of people. That's also like saying starvation isn't a real problem because you can always dig out of a dumpster if you're really that desperate. Yeah. Technically that is true. It's not a sound policy to address unemployment or homelessness. I have options in my social circle available to me if all I was doing was looking to get laid and knock a former fling up or a friend that I know is on the level. That's not generally what they're looking for though.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
I always thought it was common sense to anyone paying attention. It liberated men more than it did anyone else.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
I once asked my father what he thought America's biggest export was to the rest of the world and his answer was "our sense of entitlement."
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
Here I thought I had just bad reception and my network connection got muddled.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
I saw the original one with Jean Claude van Damme years ago. Makes me feel nostalgic. Terrible movie, but I was a kid. Raul Julia played Bison wonderfully though. I saw HBO's MK2 trailer the other day. Hope it's better than the first one they did.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
You have two choices. It can either be a lifestyle for you and a sport, or it can be self-defense. My advice would be to stay off of it, but if you're all in you're all in.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
1d ago
This was me being charitable to you.
You were being charitable by not having an argument to provide?
How about you do it first? You've spilt a lot ink not describing any of those terms and wanting me to do all the works so you can attempt to knock them down.
It's probably a good idea you finish reading the post before you reply. Your question was answered at the bottom.
Your response to that is hate and ad hominins...
You see quite a lot my friend. Too much. How about calmly reading my statements without reading into them?
"Will become X" is not the same as "already is X" in the full morally relevant sense. You are smuggling in the assertion that because something has an endpoint it must already possess the moral status of that endpoint at all points in time.
The argument is not one from potential. Engaging in the act itself I said "puts it on a developmental trajectory," and initiates the biological process.
Cool, now define innocence without appealing to Catholicism or sin. I'm not catholic and neither is 84% of the world.
"Malice" and "evil," homie. Or do those not exist in your vocabulary either?
When abortion advocates go into legislating the murder of unborn children, don’t turn around and tell those you oppose you “you can’t legislate morality.” If you don’t think people should walk about the streets with a sense of vigilante justice about them and decide to act on their liberty to murder other people for transgressions real or imagined, be consistent both ways.
Not once have I seen from you an argument that a fetus isn’t a human being in any way wouldn’t be difficult for you. I said as much earlier and received no direct response to it.
I'm going to tap the sign again. Christianity is NOT the universal moral framework. Define innocent, and Define why children are innocent, and then why don't you define why a clump of cells is considered human. Why isn't a sperm cell human or an egg? You just assume your worldview is the default and its not.
Now you’ve got the correct frame of the discussion. What I’m asking you is to do is define all these terms in a way that circumscribes only a fetus; and doesn’t leave the door open to ending the lives of massive amounts human beings after the fact. I can define all these terms in ways that are consistent because my moral framework isn’t only accurate (naturally, as I’d argue), it’s universal, which is something you balk at. Well good luck trying to eat your cake and have it too if you think you can abandon a principle that applies evenly and with equal force in all directions and situationally justify this in relativistic terms that are without analogical moral contradictions.
And if I fail to recognize this as murder? What evidence do you have that I am murdering another human being? Murder has meaning, as does human being. I've been very charitable granting you the basic frame to define human, and you've taken that charity and repaid none of it back, and taken it a fucking mile instead. So I retract that charity, prove all these terms you've so carelessly thrown around actually mean what you believe they mean.
Then per the Socratic method, you’re being irrational. There’s nothing that prevents someone from being a dumb ass either. If you object in basis of sound reasoning, you can at least be correct or morally consistent. Absent reason, you’re being irrational.
In Catholicism innocence is defined as the state of being unburdened by deliberate malice or evil. Children are innocent because they lack the rational maturity and understanding to commit mortal sin. The reason this “clump of cells,” (which also captures you and I incidentally) is a human is because it possesses a unique genetic blueprint that is distinct from both parents and is placed on a developmental trajectory towards a fully actualized human being.
Now give me your morally coherent framework for how “none of this,” supposedly counts.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
2d ago
But that's not the question, the question is that if you mitigate the consequences of your actions. If you do then you are just engaging in special pleading around people mitigating the consequences of their actions, specifically around abortion.
Question or not, it’s the reality of the matter, regardless. What you’re failing to come to grips with is that it isn’t a debate whether or not you have to liberty to have an abortion, the question is whether or not it’s moral for you to do so.
I've been very consistent. My stance is unequivocally bodily autonomy + "taking a known risk does not automatically creates an unlimited duty to endure every consequence of that risk".
Which isn’t the debate. You and I aren’t having the same conversation. The framing of the other side has everything to do with the notion that your right to enjoy sex doesn’t allow you to murder an innocent human being.
Ok I took a risk, a bad thing happened. I now am going to mitigate the consequences of that risk to the best of my ability. Looks like an abortion maximally mitigates that consequence. I'm getting an abortion. Very straight forward. You are the one who is ignoring this logical flow, because you want to mitigate your consequences but control how other people are allowed to mitigate theirs, which is hypocritical.
To you all you’re doing is “getting an abortion.” To others you’re committing murder. This is where the division is between us and it keeps going unaddressed by you.
Why do you think the church has been in crisis ever since Vatican II? Doctrine does require it of every Catholic.
This is why there’s so much blowback against the Novus Ordo and people want to see a restoration of the TLM. In the future (God willing), the SSPX, ICKSP, and FSSP will dictate and bring back the old ways of Catholicism. The shitlibs need to get the fuck out and stop polluting Jesus’ teachings. The hardliners need to return.
Do you apply this to every other risk?
Do I have a choice? Life is full of risks. You minimize the ones you can only manage and eliminate the rest that aren’t acceptable.
Does taking a known risk automatically creates an unlimited duty to endure every consequence of that risk? No? Then this is special pleading around abortion specifically
This is quite a backpedal from your position earlier and not a very good one either. And I never brought up an “unlimited duty,” to minimize risk. You’re putting words in my mouth. If you don’t want to risk a pregnancy from happening you have two basic options:
- Don’t have sex.
- Have sex responsibly (and accept a measure of risk).
It’s pretty straightforward and not more complicated than that.
My right to my body enables me the freedom from arbitrary dominion over it.
Likewise, a baby has a right to its body. Accept this risk as a possibility and engage in the act or don’t.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
3d ago
We need a restoration of conviction beyond paying lip service. It’s why despite the animosity at times I can appreciate people like Peter Dimond. We definitely didn’t put on a good showing for this one.
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t
3d ago
I'm not blue tribe, I'm a libertarian.
I said as much.
Technically so does the babies... which is why I can remove their body from mine, after which I have no say in their bodily autonomy…
If it was possible to simply “remove” their body from yours, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Their rights end where my body begins.
Except by your own words: you calculated and risk and took it. Now deal with the consequences.
Their dependence on my body and their lack of right to my body is morally consistent.
You forfeit your right to a child’s dependence on you when you accept the risk that getting pregnant is a serious possibility. If you didn’t want to take the risk, you didn’t have to. Just like you own example provides: you get into a car you accept a risk to drive. You drive drunk, you accept the increased risk of an accident.
If the technology existed to incubate those babies until they were fully formed then I imagine it would be considered correct by my morals to do so.
Then by your own admission, you don’t really deny that you’re terminating a baby’s right to life. After all if it were just a clump of cells (just like you and I are right now) there’d be no moral imperative to preserve what isn’t life.
After all who doesn't want to keep existing. However the lack of a technology existing does not suddenly make morals change.
It certainly does by your logic it seems.
I want to know how this is going to impact things when one side is using it to write and distribute memo's and other corporate information and the other side is using it to summarize and automate replies to said information and 'no' side in reality is paying attention to what the other is doing. The rift and chasm I imagine opening up is going to being chaos to organizations and cause more harm than it solves.
I read a story the other day about how new candidates on the job market are using them to build their resumes and in response HR departments are using them in tandem with the applicant tracking systems (ATS) to filter through candidates and reject the ones that are suspected to be influenced by an AI / LLM. It's a lose / lose proposition for both parties in the long run.
More options
Context Copy link