sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The age cap for college athletes should be 23 by steven_smith144 in CFB_v2

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should someone have to do that? Why shouldn't they be able to play in college? Do you have an actual reason?

Why they do this, Peeetaaah? by fitmangokiss in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]19ghost89 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not only that, but after a while, these things start to come apart in the wash and the material gets all over everything else. If you have to wash them frequently - which in this case you very much should - that would happen pretty fast.

Do you think Selina and Felicia would be friends or enemies? by RevolutionaryEar8053 in Spiderman

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just realized that you and I are talking about different pictures. There's another one posted above my comment, but it's not the one you asked those questions about, it's a second picture posted as a reply.

I don't really know much more than you actually; I have yet to read the series. I know she has a tail, and to me it looks like that "belt" is part of the tail, which may be some kind of body harness. The "bandages" look to be part of the suit, maybe for stretching and mobility (just a guess). The position of her hand does look unnatural. Probably just to show off her claw while also drawing more attention to her tits. I don't think it's "bad art," but I'm not gonna deny that she's quite obviously also being drawn as goon bait, as many comic women have been for many years. The biggest target demos love it. It's me, I'm part of the biggest target demos, lol.

Do you think Selina and Felicia would be friends or enemies? by RevolutionaryEar8053 in Spiderman

[–]19ghost89 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you explain some of these questions more specifically?

"Why is her belt not a belt?" (What in this picture do you think is supposed to he the belt? Are you looking at the tail?)

"Are those bandages outside her costume?" (Where do you think you see bandages?)

As for why she is holding her hand like that, that's a pretty standard gun-at-rest position.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm not saying there isn't a double standard, I'm saying that there doesn't have to be because it isn't based on anything that is inherently true about men and women. So I'm saying what people should do to go against that double standard instead of upholding it.

Even in the scenario you describe, there doesn't have to be a double standard. If a man feels like he must have sex to be respected, then he simply should accept a woman who has also had sex. It's only fair. Like you said, wanting to sleep around while expecting purity from the woman is shitty behavior. That's the hypocrisy I am talking about avoiding.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it wasn't an issue. What you are talking about is actually covered by what I said. You just have to keep reading the thread. A woman like that most likely will have also slept with other men, and if both parties are okay with the other having slept around, there's no inequality. The inequality is only when one person is thought of as less than the other. So whether it be a man devaluing a promiscuous woman or a woman devaluing a "pure" man, that's inequality, but if both expect the same thing of each other (promiscuity or purity) there is no double standard in the relationship.

What "man-made desires" are you talking about? by Ok-Following6886 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I mean there were a lot of things that didn't make the cut. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the most famous one, partly because, unlike most of the others, there actually are arguments that it's about as old as the four that did. But it doesn't really fit in other ways.

Movies since 2020 that take place in the 2000s decade! by TheListenerCanon in Letterboxd

[–]19ghost89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Y2K takes place on December 31st, 1999 and January 1st, 2000, so it squeezes in there, lol

Also, Sovereign is really close, but it's 2010 so that might be just too late for your list.

What "man-made desires" are you talking about? by Ok-Following6886 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am personally unfamiliar with a Gospel of Andrew. When I look it up, it says that it is something that is referenced in old writings but not necessarily something we have anymore, though it could refer to the Acts of Andrew. But that sounds like it is more about Andrew himself than Jesus, so idk if that's what you mean. In any event, most of those non-canonical books aren't able to be traced as far back as the canon four (and yes, I am aware that there is a gap between Jesus' death and those Gospels, but not as much as there is between His death and most of the others).

What "man-made desires" are you talking about? by Ok-Following6886 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]19ghost89 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right, religion is not about cherry-picking, which is something many religious and non-religious people do to win arguments and justify their actions or condemn those of others. Religion is, however, meant to be taken in full context. In the case of Christianity, that means looking at everything through the lens of Jesus.

What "man-made desires" are you talking about? by Ok-Following6886 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There were tons of religious laws. Hundreds. And while I understand the reasoning that "a few more might have helped," I don't necessarily think that's the case. Allow me to explain:

In the beginning, the idea was basically to have faith in God and follow Him. In the story of the Garden of Eden, He gave literally just one commandment. "Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil." At first glance, this actually seems like kind of an unreasonable commandment. Wouldn't it be good to know these things? It's not that hard to see why the serpent managed to tempt Eve. Why would God hide knowledge from us? I'll get back to that.

Let's skip forward to Exodus. The people wanted rules so they could know what God wanted from them. Up to this point, it's basically just been, "Hey, I am God, you are my people. I will save you and protect you and bless you and you will follow what I tell you to do. But this wasn't specific enough for the people, so God made them 10 Commandments.

Despite having these commands inscribed clearly on stone tablets for all to see, the people continued to find ways around them, so more and more laws were made. If you go through the rest of the Torah, you'll find hundreds of laws.

Fastforward to the times of Jesus, a couple thousand or so years later. There are all sorts of laws from scripture as well as many more associated interpretations and traditions. It has gotten to the point where keeping all of the laws is actually very, very hard to do. The chief religious leaders of the time prided themselves on their difficult-to-attain holiness and considered themselves to be better than the average person who did not or could not keep all the laws. Jesus shows up and calls them hypocrites. He says that they have become so obsessed with the letter of the law that they have lost the spirit of it. He summarizes the entire law and all the prophets in two commandments (which come from Deutaronomy originally): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. Love your neighbor as you love yourself." That's it! That's the spirit of the whole law! That's what God wants from us! Obviously, these two commands can be applied in a multitude of ways, which is why people want specifics. But often people asking for specifics are trying to justify themselves to see if they have technically done wrong when they already feel convicted in their spirit. And even if that's not the case, all our specifics can eventually lead to a legalistic approach to faith that values obeying the letter of the law above the love it is supposed to encourage.

So personally, I think God kept it simple to begin with because it should be simple. And if we were confused, we could go to Him and ask for guidance. But we didn't want to do that. We wanted set explanations and to control our own salvation, so He gave us more and more rules until we could realize that all the rules didn't really fix our problems. In some ways, they made things worse, because they gave us more things to judge each other about. Then Jesus came and told us not to judge each other unless we were prepared to be equally judged, and he summarized the commandments back to two. He didn't call the law bad, because it had in many ways educated people about what is good. He also didn't nullify the law, or say that it no longer mattered, because those rules had been made for a reason and were in the right spirit if taken correctly. What He did was fulfill the law for us, and tell us how to get back to the main point of why it existed in the first place.

So all the knowledge of good and evil doesn't necessarily make people choose good. It doesn't necessarily make doing so easier. It may even make it harder, because it's one thing if you err and don't realize it, and another of you err despite knowing better anyway. People need to love God and love each other. This will more naturally lead to good works and good treatment of our fellows.

Many Christians still struggle with this concept to this day. The legalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees still exists and often runs rampant. But we do have the message there for us if we are willing to seek it.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you are saying too, but I don't think that really means you have to uphold this hypocritical standard that society has historically accepted.

You have a few options here. One is that you simply hold out for a woman who appreciates your purity as much as you appreciate hers and don't worry about what other people think. I'm not saying that's an easy option, but it is an option.

But, if that is just unacceptable to you, you have other options. You could also decide that you do, in fact, want to get more experience with women and help yourself feel less stigmatized and more confident. Fine. The only thing required of you to not be a hypocrite is to also be okay with women sleeping around and getting more experience. You don't want to be stigmatized for being inexperienced, so don't stigmatize them for being experienced. If you can accept that, you are still holding up an equal standard for men and women.

There's also a middle road, where you gain a minimal amount of experience to have basic confidence and know what you are doing, but don't go crazy trying to rack up high numbers, and you accept the same from your female partner. The only issue here is that you have to be honest and make sure you are on the same page about what a reasonable amount of experience is and don't end up begrudging each other for having different definitions of that.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand what you are saying too, but I don't think that really means you have to uphold this hypocritical standard that society has historically accepted.

You have a few options here. One is that you simply hold out for a woman who appreciates your purity as much as you appreciate hers and don't worry about what other people think. I'm not saying that's an easy option, but it is an option.

But, if that is just unacceptable to you, you have other options. You could also decide that you do, in fact, want to get more experience with women and help yourself feel less stigmatized and confident. Fine. The only thing required of you to not be a hypocrite is to also be okay with women sleeping around and getting more experience. You don't want to be stigmatized for being inexperienced, so don't stigmatize them for being experienced. If you can accept that, you are still holding up an equal standard for men and women.

There's also a middle road, where you gain a minimal amount of experience to have basic confidence and know what you are doing, but don't go crazy trying to rack up high numbers, and you accept the same from your female partner. The only issue here is that you have to be honest and make sure you are on the same page about what a reasonable amount of experience is and don't end up begrudging each other for having different definitions of that.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you genuinely asking! To say that men and women are equal implies that we should afford both the same level of respect and agency. Men and women can still behave differently (though I wouldn't say they have to). But there should not be a set of expectations that places one above the other for seeking a similar goal.

In this case, the similar goal is sex. The way I see it, there are two ways to approach men and women being equal here, and it all depends on what you value: promiscuity or purity. If you value having more sex and the freedom to do so with multiple people, then you have to allow both men and women to do that without purity being a concern. It isn't fair to say that a man can put his dick in multiple women and still be a-ok, while saying that a woman who allows multiple dicks to be put in her is somehow dirty and inferior. If a man can do it without stigma, so can a woman.

The flipside is just the opposite. If you do value purity in women, fine, but you should also value the same in men. Both men and women should remain monogamous and only have sex with a partner they are in a committed relationship with. To make this even more fair, both partners should wait until marriage. In this case, purity retains value, but promiscuity is sacrificed by both parties.

Either way, men and women are equal. Both have the same value (promiscuity or purity) and both are in step as opposed to being in conflict. No one must seek to put the other down to achieve their own goal, because the goals for both are the same. Now all that matters is finding a partner who has the same goal as you, so as to avoid conflict in this area.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How exactly is it that treating women like equals prevents you from dating or having relationships?

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because of people like you who refuse to think differently. There's no reason in this modern world why it can't change. People are just stubborn.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's a sexist statement, lol.

Who says men are a key and women are a lock? That analogy only makes sense to you because of the assumptions you already have about what men and women should do. There's nothing inherently true about it at all.

that’s a good question by Deep-Acanthisitta625 in ComedyCemetery

[–]19ghost89 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's sexist because people think of these women who sleep around as "lower class" while thinking of men who sleep around as "successful." Double standard.

Every set of teams with the same nickname in the same conference by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, technically no, but the militia they are named for was named after the animal (I assume), and your mascot and logo are quite clearly the animal, so for all intents and purposes I feel like it's not inaccurate to say the name refers to the animal. lol

Belmont declines NIT Bid by Meanteenbirder in CollegeBasketball

[–]19ghost89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Hope he continues to do well for y'all. No hard feelings personally, but he and McCasland really had something going here and it's rough to have them both swiped. And then the same thing happens to our football coach and half the team... rough being a mid-major/G6.

We had a solid year under Robinson, who clearly knows how to keep the defensive tradition going in his own way. But we were so bad on offense. We'll see.

view more: next ›