@AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic's banner p

AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic

Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 23 20:41:30 UTC

Never on reddit. Never on Twitter.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1919

AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic

Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 23 20:41:30 UTC

					

Never on reddit. Never on Twitter.


					

User ID: 1919

Verified Email

I was in a similar position in 2015, my dad had a cancer diagnosis, but he responded well to treatment (he decided against the transplant route but it seems to have worked for him) and is still here. But during his treatment, two things helped me the most: seeing the example of how my parents were affected by the loss of each of my grandparents (where they had grief but persevered in life, still keeping their memories alive); and knowing that my dad (and mom) had accomplished everything they wanted to in life (the story I remember it is where they visited the financial advisor who asked if they wanted to take any international trips or leave money to their kids, and they said no not really! [siblings and I are doing really well]). Know that living a full independent life is likely what one of your fathers wishes.

For support and being there, I made sure to be available to visit, and did take him one radiation treatment (a certain Imagine Dragons Song played on the way there), but my parents handled it mostly privately and while I offered support and help I took my cues from them.

I do think it slows the slide into prurient topics that I think the more misanthropic among us insist on telling us is 'fun'.

This article https://thealliancerockband.com/nancy-parker-has-reportedly-been-fired/ says her family removed her info to stop her being harassed, which makes sense to me.

I think raising kids gives people immense satisfaction; and you can live in a decadent degenerate society and NOT be decadent or degenerate.

I think giving this any sort of mind at all only further advertises snd normalizes it. Most of us live in radically free societies, where this behavior isn't illegal, and there certainly is no appetite in legally enforcing morality.

The question on a society level is income inequality.

On a personal level: ignoring this is the solution. Focusing any sort of attention at this is a waste for some other productive thing you could be doing. My parents were able to communicate and instill their values in my siblings and I without coming in contact with the gutter. And I think not tolerating or being a part such a conversation with colleagues is trivially easy. Get better friends, if with a co-worker unwanted sexual conversation (even if you're not the target of it) is harassment.

I root against streamers. I think people (myself included) should go outside more and be on screens less. Additionally I think Europeans, from countries other than the UK and the Ireland, who post on platforms like YouTube in English and are doing a grave disservice to their own national cultures and languages.

I had a friend who I know worked at small firm in a pretty small 'big city' doing what sounded to me like paralegal work (filing forms on evictions, repossessions to the court). She said she made $50k a year but liked it because she didn't have to get clients. I think she got her grandma to foot the bill for law school (and wasn't paying her back any interest). Lived at home, and just consumed media and hated Trump, would wonder why she had no friends and would call me with grievances from her childhood.

For the Christian narrative part, its wrapped up in whether the inclination itself is a sin or whether only the acts that the inclination leads to. Different denominations fall on both sides, which I think is part and parcel with whether their understanding of grace and being saved.

28 is still young. You have over $1million with never having a job? What does 'grinding' mean?

To answer more of what your questions is I think you need to live IRL; move out rent your own place and get friends. The quote I think about is modern industrial society (and I would update it to technological society) has great propensity to give pleasure, but not at giving people joy. So while its easy to buy a cake, is not easy throw a party to have friends to enjoy it with, where I think the real joy comes from. Just a note on making friends, the advice for kiddos is to have a friend be a friend, but I think an adult will know people will disappoint them in a multitude of ways and know that is okay.

So I expect bombings against cartels or a commando raid at most, but no invasion.

I believe Trump is sinking the ships in order to make a more convincing case that he can legally use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in detaining and ultimately deporting Venezuelan nationals. The act gives the president broad powers in detaining all foreign nationals over the age of 16 with nations the US is at war with. Here by claiming the VZ government is so corrupt, it allows drugs to depart its country and makes no efforts to stop them, the 'war' between the US and the cartels can include the compromised VZ government, and the powers of this act can be used by the president. I think the president thinks by using the military to accomplish these attacks his case for claiming this is a 'war' is strengthened, since they could have gone through the regular channels of boarding the vessel, collecting the evidence and having a trial if they were so inclined.

Please correct me where I'm wrong in summarizing your beliefs:

In usages such as gay marriage, gay rights; a gay pride festival, men who top men are expected/allowed to be included in this grouping.

However in most other usages, the word gay is so infused with the negative connotations of being a bottom, that its known you can't call a man who tops men gay.

So if I'm following your reasoning, a man who tops men could be in a gay marriage, but it would incorrect to call him gay? And you believe, this is common-knowledge obvious, per your flair, that really doesn't need to rely on evidence to be stated as fact.

I think the memetic baggage for the word gay is gone. The language and understanding from our playground days has evolved. Gay is now synonymous with homosexual. The phrase its not gay for a guy to have sex with dudes isn't coherent with the way the word is currently used. I have never seen it used with the caveat just meaning bottoms.

Real gay are not attracted to traps is a ridiculous statement. I contend some gays are only attracted to traps because they are men, if they are women the attraction goes away.

Here I think your thinking hinges on your definition of real 'gay', which seems to be you wanting to group people of certain attributes rather than partakers of actions, or people who hold attractions. This is I think dishonest gate-gatekeeping. If gay is synonymous with homosexual, which I think it is, then you defining it with subjectivity is at odds with how the rest of society uses the word.

But your statement "whatever makes me hard is a woman", your friend was still a woman before you knew she was; your attraction didn't change her sex (noun). Her actual sex is a non-trivial attribute, from you statement 'I discovered he was girl and totally had the hots for her' your knowledge/attraction doesn't determine her sex but builds off her actual sex as you form your opinions of her.

Bona fide BDSM nuns is extremely dishonest wording. BDSM cos-players/performers dressed in a parody of nun attire is almost certainly what is there.

This is the John Mearheimer offensive- realism theory of gender. Just as that theory can describe Ukraine / Russia but fail to describe relations between Switzerland / Germany, your understanding I assume rejects all equal partnerships between two people? I do not think this is a useful way of thinking on relations between people.

You are correct that without sex determination, then the definition of gay is meaningless. But my point is that attraction to a same-sex for some is non-trivial. I think there is a word that describes this same-sex attraction: gay.

When I was younger, gay was the word kids used for everything lame. I remember listening to NPR (Moth radio?) where a woman gave a story where her father came out as gay and she and her mother then become advocates for gay marriage, and the storyteller said she never used the word derogatorily. I think signaling political correctness as a child? To me bullshit. It didn't pass the sniff test for me.

But as I've grown up, the word gay isn't used for lame anymore and just is a synonym for homosexual. In my teenage years the word gay seemed to be trending away from the youth slang for uncool, for political correctness purposes.

I think this is the crux of the argument, my definition is activity and attraction based. And for record, since you mentioned sin, having a same sex attractions is not a sin to most people. My definition was quickly written, and I'd throw in consent, and full knowledge as caveats as well.

I think you're using the word to describe people fitting what your definition of gay is. I don't know what attributes you consider in your definition.

I'll expand, can you talk gay? Or dress gay? Sure that sort of description only has meaning because societal connotations and associations with people following the definition as gay. You can talk/dress gay without being gay. You can be gay without talking/dressing gay. Try changing the word and its doesn't make sense to use the attributes as gate-keeping mechanisms. Example: Can you talk/dress American without being American? Can you be American without talking/dressing American?

I've never mentioned chromosomes. Imposed by the state? You're thinking boils down to me to be the motherfuckers and the motherfucked, don't bother getting male and female involved.

My only point is that only the sex (noun) of the person you have sex (verb) with can determine whether one is gay. The word gay I, and I think most other people, define as synonymous with homosexual. Maybe you and others are getting on baggage with word gay, to me its neutral.

You're assuming a lot here. Do you have any sources from this century? Wikipedia has gay is synonymous with homosexual.

I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. If my uncle had wheel's he'd be a bike. People who have homosexual sex can be defined as gay. I think its silly to needlessly add qualifiers. It is LGBT* except guys who top dudes with implants?

So your argument is basically if they have implants its not 'gay'?

Are you serious? Heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy. And if there is no shame, why not call dudes who penetrate dudes also gay? Why the gatekeeping on the word gay? The year is 2025, I'm providing a definition for gay, I do not understand what relevance your descriptions of ancient Roman pedastry have here.

Tomboys are still girls.