@Zen00 I share your fear of hurting others feelings and at the same time I fear being rejected. Both those fears make me fear getting close to others.
And I have lots of small fears. Or maybe I wouldn't call them fears even, they are just momentary things. I wonder if a general insecurity is a normal thing or if I'm especially insecure.
Also this topic has become alot about spiders which my brother fears like crazy so enjoy:
Maybe this
or that
or this, not sure though
0_1544447037300_hB4007B8B.gif
Can't decide :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:
@Vampire_Queen I perfectly agree. Everyone of us is undefinably more complex than any thought, feeling or set of words we ourselves could find to describe us. And since we are way too complex to understand ourselves others it's even more difficult for others since they lack all the insight into us that we have. But since others have a different perspective on us then we ourselves, it is also possible for them to see things about us that we cannot see.
But I'll give it a try anyways: I am a child of my own times, male, rather shy and careful. I'm very interested in understanding this world, others and myself and getting closer to the truth. I realize more and more that there are so much more things that we cannot put in words, than those we can. I am kind of a seeker, a careful explorer if you will. I have a hard time letting others get close to me, for reasons I cannot get into in a few words. I would like to connect deeply with others though. I would like to be a better dancer. I would like to start a family... when I'm ready. I like to have a good laugh, and I like it when I feel good when I'm around others, but that doesn't happen as often as I'd wish for. I'd like to be more disciplined, because discipline – though disreputed as a crime of generations before – in truth is simply the ability to create the reality that I want to create instead of being steered by others or by my own needs and drives. Too many words?
If I'd take that ability would depend on the mechanics of it. Let's say I see that tomorrow a friend of mine dies in a car crash. Since I know now that this will happen I take some action which I certainly wouldn't have taken if I hadn't known. Does this now produce a new future that I see or does my action in the end make the crash happen. This is what I mean by mechanics.
If it is the latter (what I see always comes true and whatever I do leads to it in the end) I would not want that ability because it would just be painful that whatever I do will bring the inevitable to pass, will bring every doom I predict into reality. However this kind of mechanic is basically impossible: if you can predict that you will trip over something in the next moment, you will not trip over it in the next moment, that is just how normal human mechanics work.
If on the other hand every action of mine produces a new future that I can see I'd probably take it to make the world a better place. Even if that means that I'll see many different versions of how I'll die and have to choose one obviously. Would be an enormous strain though on my psyche. Not sure if I would be strong enough to bear that burden.
If someone answers to your topics should you always upvote them? Do you read all replies? If someone agrees with you should you upvote their post? If someone starts to follow you should you follow them too? How much time do you spend on reading comments and replies?
In one phrase: What are the morals on a social network for you?
I think I'd go with the funeral. Because when I'm dead I'm either in a better place or I don't feel anything anymore. So it would not hurt me. But don't get me wrong I do indeed wish to livee a life that matters to the people around me, I want to live a life that makes sure that as many as possible show up at my funeral. Not in the sense that I'm a star or something (I never like being in the center of attention) but in the sense that what I did really mattered to them.
I think a little flirt here or there is spicing up our lives. We want to feel attractive and flirting lets us do so. Also it is a nice way of giving the other person the same feeling. In a way it's like wearing makeup, because there are two reasons to wear "normal" makeup: to be more attractive or to please group/society pressure. I am not against women (or men if they desire to do so) wearing makeup to feel more attractive.
However it very much depends on what you mean by flirting. As I said earlier I would certainly not call cuddling and kissing flirting. Explicit $e xual language I wouldn't call flirting either.
Flirting for me is more innocent stuff like telling a girl "you look like trouble", necking, some niceties. I mean we are – wether we know it or not – attracted to some people and have a chemistry with them. And it's good that that is so, as long as it does not go over the line. Flirting also makes you attractive. If somebody flirts (not crossing the line) with your partner you can either get jealous or you could take it as a compliment – because it means others find your partner attractive.
I guess it's all about where to draw the line in the end. And that both of you agree. I think if you – by nature – view the line too different from your partner you probably are not meant for each other. I also believe that if the line is drawn to narrow, that's not good for either of you. The same probably goes for too wide.
@LionCara I agree. I wouldn't call cuddling and kissing flirting at all though.
@E-Gene As a society we should make sure to properly reward people in caring occupations btw, no matter if they are women or not. Those whose occupations scale should freely share some of their gain with those whose occupations don't scale. It's hard to determine how and how much but we should tackle actual problems like this.
@E-Gene You are certainly right about the income.
What people get wrong though is the meaning of the numbers. One of the main reasons why women in general earn less than man is the choice of occupation. Women tend to choose occupations (I'm just stating statistics btw.) that involve caring about others. Men tend to choose occupations where they can create things (cars, phones, software).
The "problem" is now due to the fact that creating things can scale. A software you write once can be used by thousands of people. Whereas if you are a nurse you maybe able to take care of 50 people. It's just not comparable.
Also men tend to choose dangerous occuptions (and risk is payed better) like working on oil rigs or the like.
Actual injustice based on prejudice contributes only a fraction. This is not to downplay injustice though. We should all fight it together, man and women, when we encounter it. But always keep in mind, that there might be deeper reasons like the ones above and don't stop at the easy explanation (evil tyranny).
Depends, doesn't it?
Thinking about all those transgender women competing running and martial arts competitions my guess is that our time has just lost all sense... It depends on what, but more important than your gender is who you are as an individual.
Obviously women and men are different, but they have way more in common than what differences. Who should win? If any one gender wins, one thing is for certain: both will lose in the end. So really the only desirable outcome is that both win.
I want women and men to have the same chances and opportunities and the greatest freedom. As experience (and recently science) tells us, the results won't be equal. Women will – on average, that is statistically – choose other kinds of lives than men. And the more egalitarian a society is, the greater the statistical differences. Is that a bad thing? Well I for would not give up my free will for anything in the world (certainly not more money) and I would not want to force something like that on anyone. So, let everyone have what they desire even if men desire different things than women.
One more thing, I love women. And the more I am myself the more I enjoy being around them. So being a man is great and women are great. Win Win ;-)
@Adyyan maybe your grandparents are sailors, because then stories about the songs of mermaids that lure ships to their doom, become very relevant?
Yeah I wonder why angels – if they do – would appear only to individuals. Obviously lots of stories are false (in the historic and the story sense) and false stories just don't work too well because multiple people would have to adjust their own personal stories to others. Then again the best known stories about angels that I know of actually don't just involve a single individual. Abraham was with his wife and since he was a rich man – if he existed which certainly is not impossible and after all someone has to be the father of all israelites – his servants weren't far either. After the resurrection of jesus there was always more than one disciple present when an angel appeared, etc.
For me personally all of faith stands and falls with the question of god. If god is and acts, then why wouldn't there be angels? If he is not, then who cares.
I mean most people (I believe the statistic says 70% in the west) believe in something supernatural (this obviously includes all of esoterics and new age). Most of them believe that with death things don't end somehow. So if we continue living when our body dies why wouldn't there be others who don't have a body in the first place. Anybody who believes in anything supernatural but laughs when someone says something about angels is a hypocrite in my eyes.
For those who don't believe in anything supernatural I'd say that is a valid logical standpoint. As long as they don't say they know that there is nothing supernatural that is. Because how can you know about something that you cannot prove or disprove with the tools by which you claim that you know. Atheism is nonsense, it's just illogical. Agnosticism on the other hand is logical and valid.
Because in the end reason tells us that there are only two alternatives. Either the world – meaning everything that is material and non material (if any) – is eternal or there is a creator. There is no third option. And both options show us the limits of our reason because neither can our mind grasp the creator nor can it grasp a world without beginning or end (that kind of makes the world godly). It just does not make sense to our mind and yet it is as it is.
I guess this is the biggest mystery ever: why is there anything? Shouldn't there be nothing? Certainly from nothing does not just pop out something. And yet none of us can deny that there is something because we are in fact experiencing it this very moment. Actually thinking about it I'd have to call it a miracle. Existance itself is a miracle, something which is by all means impossible. People don't believe in miracles yet we are in the presence of an unimaginable miracle any moment of our lives.
Depends on what you mean by real. And by more. From a purely boolean perspective both are either real or not, here is no more or less.
If we look at it however from the story viewpoint then for example the story where the angels visit abraham can tell us a lot about hospitality and have a definite relevance for our lives. The fact in itself that those stories have meaning and relevance for generations and generations of people shows that they are somewhat more real than they would be if they were historically accurate. Mermaid stories on the other hand – at least those I know of – have little or no relevance for our lives and in this sense it can be said that angels are more real than mermaids.
An other interesting perspective: As you might know every "scientific fact" is but a scientific consensus, since science cannot establish facts (as in mathematical proofs). It is considered a scientific fact (there is not a single scientist believing that there are mermaids) that mermaids (as in half human creatures) don't exist. It is however not a scientific fact that angels don't exist, because since angels are – if they exist – no physical creatures and thus science cannot actually say anything about it. So what is more real, that which science can find to be real and has found to be not or that which science cannot find to be real or not real?