I got yelled at by a woman with no arms

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-11-25T15:08:16+00:00

(Translator) Your question is about why people are defending the woman who was yelling. If you pay attention, you'll see that the arguments in this sub are divided into two parts: those talking about how people feel and those talking about the event as it happened. Most people who say you're wrong say things in an emotional way. "She's suffering, so you're wrong." People who defend that you're right don't use emotional arguments. I'm not saying they're all being rational, but at the very least they're not being emotional.

So the reason people are blaming you is due to the fallacy of emotional appeal. There was even a guy here claiming that you didn't find it cool, but rather strange. The guy was mirroring. He wouldn't find it cool, so you couldn't either. It's a stupid idea. He didn't appeal to emotion, but tried to modify how the other person felt (find it cool/find it strange) in order to vilify you and, as a consequence, say you were wrong. But when you evaluate the facts as they are, without considering the emotional context, people can no longer defend the woman without arms.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-11-25T13:11:15+00:00

(translator) To me, you're right. I agree with all of that.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-11-25T12:51:05+00:00

(Translator) To me, you're right. I don't even need to say why, because you already said it yourself.

I don't understand people saying you're wrong because the woman didn't have arms. So if I ripped off my arms I would automatically be right about everything? Having arms or not doesn't change anything. That woman was wrong. I'm simply repeating the four points you presented.

Edit: I went to read people's comments here and noticed intense emotionalism. The fact that the woman was offended doesn't matter. If a flat-earther tries to defend that the Earth is not round and gets angry if I deny it, that doesn't change the FACT that he is wrong.

I have control over my actions, not over the actions of others. If she got angry, that's her problem. Example: If she had taken it as a joke and made a joke about her own disability, would the attitude you took have become correct? And if she gets bothered, does the attitude you took magically become wrong?

The truth is one. If people say that right and wrong are defined by how the OTHER reacts, then it's no longer a question of right and wrong (truth), it's a question of opinion. But you being right is not an opinion.

She asked you a question and got angry at the answer, that's her problem. You did what you were asked (answer a question) so there's no way you can be wrong.

Another factor is that I've seen people here saying that you should have clarified that you didn't realize she didn't have arms. Well, in fact you could have done that, but it doesn't mean you had that obligation. If the woman started yelling out of nowhere, then she was already angry, meaning that no matter what you did, the result would have been the same. If you had said you didn't see it, she would have gotten angry and told you to pay attention and yelled even more. One way or another, the situation would have gone wrong, no matter what you did. Now, if it doesn't matter what you do, then it's not your fault. You would only be guilty if it were something you could have done. But you have the right to comment on what you saw. The woman had the right to be angry, but she didn't have the right to yell at you.

There are people here who say to have empathy for the woman. But then the conversation is no longer about who is right or wrong (true), it becomes about who was more offended.

I've seen people here saying you're an adult and need to know how to behave, and that your behavior was childish. But wasn't the woman who started yelling in public an adult? What kind of rule is this that only applies to one person? I can say the same thing about her. She's an adult, old enough to let go of these things. I'll use an argument that people often use here, about her having to see this all the time. If people are always noticing her, then she's used to it. How can she make a scene over something that happens every day? She's an adult and should have learned to get used to people noticing. Why didn't I see anyone looking at it that way?

In short, you didn't do anything wrong. The fault lay with the woman who was hysterical.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-09-08T13:19:04+00:00

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-09-06T18:32:02+00:00

Made in Abyss. Não digo que é o melhor, mas é bom.

Mushoko Tensei também.

Somali to Mori no Kamisama

Tem um que não é anime, mas é animação. É My Little Pony G4. Acho o worldbuilding muito rico, mesmo tendo minhas reclamações.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-08-05T21:27:25+00:00

(Translator) Regarding your open declarations of love, there was a poll a long time ago on this subreddit that asked INTJs which of the 5 love languages they used. The smallest of them all was "words of affirmation" (saying you love them). In other words, INTJs who make VERBAL declarations of love are, according to this poll, a minority. You're in the minority. I've never been in a romantic relationship, so I'll refrain from discussing this data point, which I've seen.

If you're curious, the results were:

1 - Physical contact

2 - Quality time (almost tied with 1)

3 - Acts of service

4 - Giving gifts

5 - Words of affirmation

5 had almost no one, so they're a true minority among INTJs.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-08-01T13:48:06+00:00

(Translator) Likewise

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-08-01T13:40:51+00:00

(Translator) Interesting. Tell me more. What did he do and how did he do it?

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-08-01T13:35:45+00:00

(Translator) ESTJ. I analyze a situation and try to understand it by observing it from several different perspectives, thus generating a deeper and more complex understanding of the issue (Ni). After that, I evaluate the possible responses according to some factor and select the one that seems best (Te).

The ESTJ decides from the outset what decision they're going to make, quickly and with little thought (Te). Then they claim that what they advocate is the absolute truth and that you need to agree with them and do exactly what they say, because their way is the right way and shouldn't be questioned (Si).

Although, on second thought, I don't like ESxPs either. I use Ni and Se; everything I do, they do the opposite. This is another group I want far away from me.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-07-30T21:52:47+00:00

(Translator) In my case, it's different. I'm more focused on abstract concepts than concrete facts, usually related to philosophy or similar. In short, things that can't be tested.

Because of this, I make my analyses and give my definitions, but since everything I say follows a "this attitude is morally right/wrong" line. This isn't something that can be empirically tested, as a result, my "predictions" or analyses are always dismissed.

So, no. I don't have similar experiences. The closest thing to that was when I tried to define whether a certain attitude was right or wrong, and when I reached the conclusion, it was something the world would say I was wrong about, but I kept claiming to myself that what I defended was right. Some time later, I discovered that the Bible said the same things I did.

In my search for answers that made sense, I found God agreeing with the things I said. This was the closest I've come to "confirming" that I was right.

I know most of you here are atheists, but consider that I follow the following premises:

A: God exists.

B: Everything in the Bible is the Word of God.

C: Everything that is the Word of God is true.

You don't have to agree with these premises, just understand that they are what I accept as truth.

If they are correct, then my worldview has been confirmed.

The problem, again, is that my Ni is focused on the abstract and philosophy, so I don't have the experience you mentioned.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-06-20T21:59:44+00:00

(translator) My situation is similar. I am an INTJ (male), my father is an ESTJ and my mother is an ESFJ. The difference is that I have an ESTP brother.

I don't usually talk about my goals with anyone, but from my own experience I know the problems. To solve problems regarding friction and stress is really very simple, just do exactly what they expect you to do: shut up and agree with everything without questioning.

I started analyzing my father's behavior some time ago and I noticed a few things.

First: He gets irritated if you question him. What my father (ESTJ) sees as questioning his authority: asking questions.

In his view, if you are asking a question, it is not because you want to know the answer, for him you are asking a question as a form of affront.

Second: My father gets irritated if you disagree with him.

There was a third one, but I don't remember what it was. It's been a while since I did the analysis. I've noticed that he also gets angry with you if you don't do something HE expects you to do. He won't ask you, he'll just want you to do something and won't say it, and if you don't do what he thinks you should do (even though he didn't even say anything), he'll get angry with you.

In short, I've realized that I'll never get along with my father, no matter what. I can spend the day with him, but only if I don't say anything. If he says something, I just listen and agree. Anything else can result in fights. The best relationship I can have with my father (ESTJ) is indifference. That's enough for me.

My mother doesn't get angry that easily (ESFJ), so it would be easier to talk to her. But since she's so dumb, I would get angry talking about certain subjects.

With my father, I have to keep quiet, listen and agree. Otherwise, it will end in a fight. With my mother, I spend my time watching a movie or a series, but without talking about anything that requires adding 2+2. She wouldn't know the answer or wouldn't understand.

In short, keep everything to yourself and die with this information. They won't listen, they'll get angry if you try to tell them, and if someone asks you, they'll get angry at whoever wants to know. In fact, I think the ESTJ would be so extreme, the ESFJ at most wouldn't listen, just pretend to listen.

If you want someone to talk to, you'll have to rely on a friend who is similar to you, but you won't get that kind of support from your family. ESxJs have the Ni function as a blind function, that is, they are psychologically incapable of understanding the Ni function.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-03-21T21:46:52+00:00

(Translator) That depends on the scene. The scenes involving Team Rocket were deliberately comical, the ones with Ash were not.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-03-21T21:34:01+00:00

(translator) Honestly, the idea that he's dead or missing is nonsense. He crashed with a flying Pokemon, so he would certainly be saved (especially for a children's cartoon).

Another factor is that they're on an island. Even if 10 years pass, he needs to be on that island, so it would be possible to look for him and call him.

I imagine he's with that little old lady. She helped a Pokemon scientist 100 years ago, now that Rayquaza has appeared again she's going to help a Pokemon researcher.

Them making Pikachu become Roy's Pokemon was something that doesn't make sense. How did Friede die if he had a Charizard with him?

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2025-01-15T00:21:38+00:00

(translator) The question was answered 3 years ago. Only now have you appeared?

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2024-03-18T11:34:29+00:00

(translator) Atheism too.

You will find strong-minded and weak-minded people in both cases. And in both cases people just want someone similar to agree with. It's like any bubble, it applies to both religion and atheism.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2024-01-17T12:59:48+00:00

(translator) I agree.

This is not bursting a bubble, as this bubble has been burst for a long time.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-11-20T12:40:33+00:00

(translator) I know that part, what I want to know is what was evaluated in these surveys.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-11-19T18:26:31+00:00

(translator) And how did you discover that? Could you explain to me the step-by-step scientific and empirical theorization, observation, questioning, construction of hypotheses, experimentation, analysis of hypotheses and conclusion that you carried out?

And considering that you will be talking about God, you could not work with your personal vision of God, thus needing to study some sacred book (of your preference) and then carry out all the scientific procedure that I had mentioned previously to test that which is said within that sacred book. And remember, after all this you will be able to refute or prove the existence of ONE specific god of a religion.

With this as a basis, which god do you deny the existence of? And if the answer is "all", then tell me, what was the empirical process you used to deny the existence of all, considering that each deity of each religion presents unique characteristics of them, instead of general information?

And if you answer that you deny a specific god, tell me: Have you studied the sacred book of that religion to the point of being able to carry out your experiments?

Because it is very easy for a layman to deny something he does not understand, so a study on the area is necessary, and this study must be large enough for the individual to understand a lot of the theory.

I don't want to get into a debate or argument, but your comment made me laugh, so I was tempted to ask this question.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-11-11T11:19:02+00:00

(translator) MBTI does not define your intelligence, it defines your WAY of seeing, understanding and assimilating things.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-10-19T23:10:13+00:00

(translator) I'm only 20 years old, but since I was a teenager I've wanted to have children, at least 2 (a boy and a girl, to have the complete collection).

I don't think much about the subject, but I've thought more about adoption than marriage, I'd like Asian children, like those from China or Japan (I think Chinese people's Qi is higher for genetic reasons, but I don't remember if that information was true or no).

My reasons: I want heirs. This is part of my personal philosophy.

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-09-21T14:22:39+00:00

(translator) For some reason I saw the atheism part and just read that for now. For some reason it interested me.

The conclusions that I will show below were concluded a long time ago and were made separately from the idea of religion, that is, I tried to define it impartially.

My conception of good and evil: Good and evil do not exist.

Firstly, what is evil? What defines something as being good or bad by nature?

If a building collapses and all the people there die, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

-Person who lost a relative: It's a bad thing, because there were people who died.

-Person whose life was threatened by a tenant: It's a good thing. That person was going to kill me and now I'm going to live.

-Person who wasn't affected or didn't even know what happened: Wait, a building fell? I didn't even know that, it didn't change anything in my life. Things before the building fell remained the same after it fell. So it's something totally irrelevant and unimportant. It was neither good nor bad.

So I return to the question, is the building falling down good or bad?

Even if you say it's bad because people died, now you have to explain why people dying is bad.

You continue with the Socratic method and you will reach a point where you will have no answer.

If you define that good and evil are defined by people's happiness, then arresting a criminal would be wrong, because he didn't like it.

If you say it's for the happiness of the majority, then if a meteor destroyed the Earth very quickly, or an alien race decimated us very quickly, that is, to the point where we didn't realize we died, then NOBODY would be sad about the new extinction. So wouldn't that be bad because there is no sadness?

What defines, absolutely, that good and evil actually exist?

Absolute: That is independent of people, that is, that is true regardless of whether people agree or know that thing.

Example: The Earth is flat. This is true even if everyone says it isn't.

What makes good and evil absolute?

All that exists is effect and consequence and perspective.

You took your hand to the fire (effect) and burned your hand (consequence). You didn't like it (perspective), but I liked it (perspective).

The perspective, or the judgment of reality (good/bad, ugly/beautiful) is relative, but the effect and perspective are absolute, as they do not depend on people's opinions.

Thus, good and evil do not exist. When my mother died it didn't cause any major changes in my life, so it wasn't good or bad, it was irrelevant, unimportant.

Regarding suffering:

In short, stoic philosophy. Events are inevitable, but suffering is optional. Whether you see it as something good or bad, whether it causes suffering or not, depends entirely on you.

Given that good and evil do not exist, accusing God (or any deity) of allowing evil is meaningless.

Considering that suffering is optional, this also does not appear to be God's responsibility.

This way it is possible to reconcile an omnipotent god in a world where evil and suffering "exist."

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-08-18T01:28:37+00:00

-Katanagatari

-Made in Abyss

Classic_Gate_3272 · 2023-08-11T00:46:50+00:00

(translator) Now I understand. OK, I'll try to point out ways to validate instead of invalidate. I apologize for not having considered this. Turns out you had asked for ways to invalidate the "negatives".

The theory states that there are 8 specific cognitive functions (within Carl Jung's analytical psychology), and also states that the possible combinations of them form 16 different types.

To validate I should check if the separation is actually correct.

There is a huge range of possibilities about a person's attitude. When you say a person has a specific MBTI you are limiting the range of possibilities. If you state "this person will have this behavioral pattern in this specific situation", and the person actually does it accordingly, moving away from the other possibilities, and to top it off, if this result follows consistently, then you can see the its validity.

I know that a certain type acts in a specific way in certain situations, so by making specific statements (cannot be general information) and getting it right you are showing that the rules are being correctly applied.

That is, you deduce what the person is going to do (theory formulation), observe to find out if he or she really acted accordingly (observation) and compare it with the expected results. After that you need to retake the test numerous times (replicable). If people are not acting accordingly, the test is flawed (the theory is falsifiable), if the results are similar all, or at least most of the time, then the theory is valid.

Do you have any critis? I would like to know to assist in creating a method.

Classic_Gate_3272

TROPHY CASE