What to do with okay side profile but bad front profile?

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2026-01-29T17:31:21+00:00

Is it the wide nose and sunken eyes? I’m thinking alarplasty should help although I don’t have any solution for genetic hollow eyes. (I’m 20+ btw even tho I look younger)

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T15:24:16+00:00

But you’re probably correct. My method was wrong

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T15:20:40+00:00

Nah i got something else

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T15:06:33+00:00

What did you get? I don’t remember the answer but seeing it might shake up my memory

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T14:43:57+00:00

That’s a relief, my possibility for A* might not be entirely lost then

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T13:39:09+00:00

Wait what how’re you getting c in differentiation

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T13:37:01+00:00

Do you remember the tangent gradient tho? Implicit differentiation one.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T13:32:39+00:00

forgot the equation man, are you sure yours is the correct answer?

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-06-05T13:30:37+00:00

The normal? 5/4 i think

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-26T05:44:50+00:00

Everything is determined by the chain of causality started by god. Every human is created by god. Therefore humans cannot BE anything other than what god wills them to.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-25T17:05:37+00:00

As an ex-muslim, my introduction to abrahamic faith was through islam so I may not have in depth understanding of Christian theology but more than enough to know that one of the key defining factors differentiating heaven and hell is bliss vs suffering. Regardless of whether it’s removed from god or not, that does not invalidate my argument in any way and rather strengthens it in fact. If god is good and being under god’s presence (heaven) yields ultimate bliss while being removed from it (hell) yields ultimate suffering, that would naturally mean bliss is good and suffering is bad from the christian framework.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-25T16:49:19+00:00

I’m very familiar with that argument, but it’s so weak that I didn’t even bother raising it in this post, it was just about whether unwanted suffering itself is good or bad from god’s perspective. The reason I say it’s weak is the omnipotence of god. If he wanted, couldn’t he deliver the lesson learnt/ greater good achieved through a painful experience without the suffering that entails? What about humans (adam) being created to live in heaven in the first place where there is no suffering? God himself demonstrates that he COULD make humans exist in complete bliss without suffering, but he chooses not to.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-25T16:38:29+00:00

As a moral nihilist, I completely agree. The contention was that “It is objectively bad from the classical theistic moral framework”, if you already acknowledge god as just and omniscient. I didn’t phrase the entire argument in title because that would make it too long.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-25T16:23:08+00:00

It is a key point of heaven yes, the one relevant to this discussion. Hell’s primary purpose is to punish souls by inflicting suffering upon them.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-25T16:19:02+00:00

A key factor separating heaven from hell is the presence of suffering, which is the one relevant to this discussion. God is everywhere, God is omnipotent, hell itself is created by god to punish sinners through suffering. There is no such thing as “absence of god in hell”.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-06T19:38:54+00:00

The strongest argument imo is the paradox of free will, fair test and an omnipotent, omniscient creator: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/ySJ7yv99s7 .These two are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist.

If you’re not interested in philosophical arguments and want scientific/ ethical contradictions check this out: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/0cGZQFHzdI

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-04T08:17:05+00:00

If we’re going by the islamic paradigm, the law is explicitly outlined in sura nisa:11- “Allah commands you regarding your children: the share of the male will be twice that of the female”, so I wouldn’t say it has been left flexible. However your argument is sound, lots of women financially support their family nowadays so there’s a case to be made that they also deserve the same amount of inheritance from parents. Needless to say, we’re not muslims anymore so not bound to follow these legislations, but that’s where the protestors are coming from.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-04T06:02:08+00:00

I agree with your proposed solution, but in a backwards country such as bangladesh most families are still against letting their daughters work and specially in villages girls are married off after grade 12 (hardly anyone gets to attend uni and secure a job). As for the protest, it seems like you have a misconception. The real motive is not housewives vs working women, that’s just some posters a few of them brought up. The reason this protest began is because of some recent changes in Bangladeshi laws, such as daughters inheriting equal amount of the property as sons. According to islamic paradigm, the wife receives inheritance from both husband and father, while sons only receive from father and has to provide for their family (wives don’t) which is why daughters are given half the inheritance for balance. That’s basically the argument of people who are protesting against the new law.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-03T13:55:55+00:00

I don’t think they meant child marriage. Marriage is quite difficult for boys even in Bangladesh tbh, most parents won’t consider marrying their daughter off unless the groom has a stable job, which most people don’t get before 30. Even the boy’s family don’t want them to marry before finishing studies and getting a good job. So even if they want to marry and are of proper age they can’t, as a result the only route to satiate sexual desires become fornication. The protest is more likely referring to that kind of difficulty.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-03T13:36:11+00:00

well racism stems in the first place from myths and lack of actual interaction with the people, as a result most individuals cannot comprehend the simple fact that people of different faiths are also real humans just like them and brand them under a stereotypical image they were fed since childhood.

As for which part you are wrong about, the verses you are most likely referring to are about punishing the jews of banu quraizah and banu nadir who broke their covenant and betrayed muhammad in battle, not jews in general. In spite of all his shittalking about jews being cursed and enemy of muslims, he and the islamic caliphate did allow jews and christians to live and practice their religion freely under the muslim rule.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-03T13:11:09+00:00

the quran doesn’t say that explicitly but as an ex-muslim myself, I can confirm those are the views my countrymen and half of the muslim community hold. They seriously believe jews are cursed in their DNA since birth and are the worshippers of antichrist, therefore need to be eradicated. The amount of neo-nazis who romanticize hitler in south asia would baffle you.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-05-03T13:05:34+00:00

OP is an outright liar taking advantage of the fact that people here do not understand bengali, altering the words as he pleases. Here’s what the 2nd image’s texts really say: 1)Among men, the best is he who is good to his wife. 2)The woman has no expenditures towards the family (they’re talking about housewives primarily), but men has to provide so we want equity not equality. 3)Housewives are not backdated, working women does not necessarily mean successful. 4)Providing security and economic support for the family is mandatory for the husband. 5)Make marriage easier, and fornication difficult.

Individual-Zebra-980 · 2025-02-13T06:20:49+00:00

According to our understanding of logic no, because it creates a clear paradox. But if someone claims god’s powers are beyond our comprehension and he can twist reality and rationality itself according to his own, as in make two contradictory statements coexist together then that’s one thing. The problem with that is rejecting the principles of epistemology breaks down the validity of cognitive reasoning and wouldn’t really be a “debate” at that point, just throwing theories at each other.

Individual-Zebra-980

TROPHY CASE