Chris A

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@EVERTEMPEST @ItIsHoeMath @frozenaesthetic We CAN do the theft.

Therefore we should? 🙄

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

"Give us food or you die"
"Give us shelter or you die"

Yes it is, you are not entitled to having other people save your life.

The American government (under the principals of its founding) does not 'grant' you rights. It acknowledges rights that you already have. "Natural rights" or "negative rights" and respects its duties to not infringe on those rights. Which explicitly means, it's not there to give you free stuff, it's there to ensure you keep what you already have.

The idea that the federal government SHOULD control the currency to the extent that it is capable of printing money to drive inflation is ridiculous.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@priyaee Fantasy needs to meet reality.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@Embervoidtv @MattWalshBlog Your mistake is thinking these people to be logical and rational.

[shoe @shoe0nhead]

lindsay clancy admitted she did it, there is no evidence it was her husband, she was NEVER diagnosed with postpartum psychosis or postpartum depression, she had plenty of resources & tons of help more help than most women in WORSE situations have had, she purposely told her husband to go on a long errand so she would have enough time to do what she wanted to do, she planned all of this out. in the middle of strangling her 3 children to death during "psychosis" she managed to take a phone call from her husband and sound totally rational then go right back to her "psychosis".

she was NOT failed by the system or her husband,…she failed herself and most of all she failed her children. she was the person meant to protect those babies and she betrayed them like an evil demotic bitch from hell. She deserves to rot in prison or worse.

pre-meditated murder being "manslaughter" is insane but there's 12 women on the jury so i won't be shocked if they fall for the "she's just a sad widdle girl" guilt trip her lawyers pulled at the end there

if lindsay clancy isn’t held accountable for her actions due to "hormones", it sets a precedent that women will not be punished by the law the same way men are punished because “hormones” and i shudder to think about the copy cat cases that will come from this if she is not found guilty of murder

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@kangminlee We are going to get abducted, tortured, and likely stabbed.
I've got your back though bro.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

If it's about him, and showing off his money and status, yes it's cringe.
If he genuinely wants you to have a good time, while enjoying himself for what the date IS, including a clear idea of what he wants, but no expectations. Then it's fine.
The goal shouldn't be to control people, but to get to know them to see if you're a good fit.
As long as that desire is earnest, it doesn't really matter what you do.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

It's also not about the activities themselves. It's about what kind of person you are.
Would you like to spend the rest of your life with someone that isn't fun to be around?

Yes, you want to build a life together with someone, but with who?
Can't imagine conducting an interview just to TELL the other person how fun you are to be around.

Show, don't tell.
All these things require balance.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@TBYSTweet Looks like she's doing Pixar faces. Copying the expresions you see in their movies.
Those are minions singing, or at least sound like it.

So we can blame Pixar.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

Her entire response is a red flag.

She refused to take any accountability, deciding to blame him for having a standard rather than trying to understand his perspective and identify with it. To her, his feelings are entirely invalid.
Then she makes it all about her and how she Is a victim. She invents a story about how HE is the problem so she can justify their relationship problems on her terms.

Yeah, no wonder men don't want to marry women who justify child strangulation and think it's excusable.

This was about who she is as a person, her values, and they did not accord with his in a very fundamental way. Rather than accept that, she gets defensive and seeks public validation for herself and shame for him.

The nail in the coffin is that she never adjusts her position, she claims ignorance as a defense, and says "I'm just so over it I just want to move on". Which is a classic deflection technique. She knows she was in the wrong, and chooses to make the problem HIM for asking the question rather than her response.

The gaslighting is unreal.
Except, also completely typical of many women 🙄

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@WestsideLAGuy It's always "I want, I want, I want"

The ultimate red flag is a list of demands rather than sharing what you have to offer.

It tells you everything about who they are.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

"I'm so smart, look at all the pats on the head I got from my professors to prove it!"

Don't you think showing is better than telling?
Why would you use an argumentative fallacy to justify your argument, especially an argument from authority, an authority that the OP clearly does not respect.
Showcasing both your (ironic) lack of people skills as well as poor logic. 😬

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@Rach4Patriarchy who else are they going to blame? Themselves?

It became fashionable to hate men.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

Imagine applying his logic to any other immoral action, like being a thief.

"Stealing is bad! But we shouldn't punish thieves because it would ostracize them from the church and society.
Instead we should just be grateful when they stop and pay them to show up to events to advocate against stealing."

The end effect being that thieves keep the products of their theft, gain moral standing, and special treatment as an underclass for having overcome their bad behaviors later on.
However, they'd never suffer any real consequences, therefore creating pure incentive structure for that behavior society wide.

You might say that thieves create clear victims, and as such those victims deserve justice, but the same cannot be said for porn stars whose 'victims' voluntarily participate.
However, that says nothing about the harm to society that is produced by these actions. That if left alone and not properly disincentivised will be repeated more and more as those with a low moral bar will be insentivised to take advantage of the system that was created through the generalized acceptance of their behaviors. Eventually that tolerance will degrade and destroy your society.

As far as who should advocate against these sins.
Would you rather listen to someone who overcame their temptations to sin, despite every opportunity.
Or people who were either, never tested, or frequently and repeatedly gave in, only to be bailed out by someone else, or in the case of porn stars, dropped out of the market only when their beauty and youth started to fade and the trade became less lucrative for them later on.
If looking for people with wisdom and moral fiber, the former is obviously the best pick.
That doesn't necessarily exclude ex-porn stars, but if thier sin was the pursuit of selfish means, it would seem that while the methodology of their sin has changed, the essense has not if they are pursuing those same things, only through the influence of the church.
Which people like this man, are unthinkingly allowing their churches to become a vehicle for.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

Imagine applying his logic to any other immoral action, like being a thief.

"Stealing is bad! But we shouldn't punish thiefs because it would ostracize them from the church and society.
Instead we should just be grateful when they stop and pay them to show up to events to advocate against stealing."

The end effect being that thieves keep the products of their theft, gain moral standing, and special treatment as an underclass for having overcome their bad behaviors later on.
However, they'd never suffer any real consequences, therefore creating pure incentive structure for that behavior society wide.

You might say that thieves create clear victims, and as such those victims deserve justice, but the same cannot be said for porn stars whose 'victims' voluntarily participate.
However, that says nothing about the harm to society that is produced by these actions. That if left alone and not properly disincentivised will be repeated more and more as those with a low moral bar will be insentivised to take advantage of the system that was created through the generalized acceptance of their behaviors. Eventually that tolerance will degrade and destroy your society.

As far as who should advocate against these sins.
Would you rather listen to someone who overcame their temptations to sin, despite every opportunity.
Or people who were either, never tested, or frequently and repeatedly gave in, only to be bailed out by someone else, or in the case of porn stars, dropped out of the market only when their beauty and youth started to fade and the trade became less lucrative for them later on.
If looking for people with wisdom and moral fiber, the former is obviously the best pick.
That doesn't necessarily exclude ex-porn stars, but if thier sin was the pursuit of selfish means, it would seem that while the methodology of their sin has changed, the essense has not if they are pursuing those same things, only through the influence of the church.
Which people like this man, are unthinkingly allowing their churches to become a vehicle for.

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

How do you block someone and then say, "please tell me"

Boooo, Hisss, I was having fun.

I know they didn't want a woman because they didn't elect one, duh. There's your logic.

I didn't realize this argument was so offensive for you BECAUSE you're a woman.
Unfortunately, you haven't done your sex proud in this exchange.

Too bad we didn't have a more meaningful discussion, but you deserved the trolling tbh 😜

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

"Sorry you got offended"

Lol, which of us is offended? Care to re-read your own post?

Your examples are meaningless.
If women were better leaders, (ergo if people WANTED them to lead) they would be leading far more.
So proof positive is that they don't.

On top of that, proportional to the level of influence women have been given, yes, they have performed far worse when given equivalent roles on average.

Noe there are no female Hitlers and Stalins, because everyone who put those men in power thought a woman would be far worse 😉

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@SimofCole @WestsideLAGuy @wake_up_girl_3 Haha 😂, Just because you don't know anything about women in history and their capacities as leaders, doesn't mean you can expect other people to play your stupid game.

Sure, men and women are exactly the same. Good argument, well done 😉

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@wake_up_girl_3 AI wrote this

[Chris A @ChrisA2272]

@SimofCole @WestsideLAGuy @wake_up_girl_3 And yet, almost every example where woman are in charge ends far worse.

So try again 😉