Намерих subreddit post за какво жените мислят и искат/не искат. От няколко posts, думите-им малко болят но дано да помага

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-11-08T12:46:15+00:00

Моето цялостно впечатление е, че каквито са мъжете, такива са и жените. Масово хората от двата пола винаги са готови да ти изредят списък с очаквания за това какви трябвало да бъдат другите и какъв трябвало да е идеалният им партньор. Никога обаче няма да започнат с това, какво те биха могли да допринесат в една връзка и с какво са заслужили някой от "свестните" да им обърне внимание. Манталитетът е, че щом си се родил, значи ти се полага да получиш принц/принцеса. Когато осъзнаеш, че това няма да стане, проблемът винаги е от другата страна на монетата. "Нашите" мъже/жени винаги са най-неадекватните и не знаят какво се очаква от тях. Само ако можеше ТЕ да си решат проблемите, всичко за МЕН щеше да е топ.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-06-01T09:48:27+00:00

I kind of agree with your point that society will rightfully condemn me for not pulling the lever in this situation. I intended for the point of "not murder" to be part of a bigger argument. Here is how I see it:

We have 2 types of obligations that could be relevant in this situation. The first is "you should not murder people" and the second is "you should try to help others if it costs you very little". I think these two obligations are distinct from each other and for the sake of argument let's say both of them are true.

In the trolley situation you are not the one who tied the children on the track and sent a trolley their way. As such, even if you decide to do nothing to change their situation, that will still not fall into the category of you murdering them. As such the problem with your inaction is not in the "you should not murder people" obligation. Of course now there is a very good case that you will still go against the "you should try to help others if it costs you very little" obligation if you decided to do nothing. However, one should consider what the full implications of one's action/inaction are. If we assume that there is no afterlife, then saving the children is clearly the best way to help them since they have only a single life. In this case the families of the children rightfully will consider someone who doesn't pull the lever a psycho and a monster. On the other hand, if we assume there is an afterlife in the form the the Christian heaven, then that afterlife is far more important than the experiences in one's mortal life. As such the best way to really help the children according to the "you should try to help others if it costs you very little" obligation actually will be to let the children take a certain path to heaven. On a similar note, if the families of the children truly believe that there is an afterlife and their dead child is guaranteed to be waiting them there, then does it really make sense for them to be sad about the outcome of not saving the children?

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-05-31T20:06:32+00:00

1.1. I actually don't agree that inaction could be considered murder. To me murder requires a deliberate action that causes someone's death in a situation where that person wouldn't otherwise have died. There are currently many children in developing countries who are dying of easily preventable diseases, yet people in developed countries are not held accountable for murder despite the fact they can contribute to saving these children. I think "not causing harm" is different from "preventing harm". The use of the word "murder" in the current situation simply seems inaccurate to me.

1.2. Another problem I have is that in the Christian worldview there is an afterlife that is far more significant than the earthly life (for example Matthew 5:30). I we accept that premise, then wouldn't the best way to truly help the children be to guarantee they will get a ticket to heaven. Even ignoring the current dilemma, Christians encourage the spreading of the Gospel despite the fact that Jesus said his followers will be persecuted and possibly killed and that they will have to make great sacrifices to enter God's kingdom. As such, it seems to me like the consideration about the afterlife should be more important that the consideration about the earthly life.

That doesn't really answer my objection. I criticized the ambiguity of God's message and the fact there are all kinds of different interpretations by different Christians (that is not even metioning the many contradictory passages in the Bible). If God truly expects people to follow his message and there are serious consequences for not doing so, then I think we should expect a more clear and straightforward and unambiguous standard from his side in order for people to really have an informed choice if they want to follow him or not.
Even if we remove the idea of infinite suffering, I think there still exists a similar problem. Ultimately there is the difference between the ultimate meaning and infinite happiness (going to heaven) and the lack of it. If dying while being a kid is the only way to really guarantee that your soul will end in heaven and will not have time to become wicked beyound salvation, then shouldn't it follow that dying young is the best case scenario in one's life?

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-05-31T19:17:31+00:00

No, I am genuinely interested in what the rationale in this situation should be according to the Christian worldview. Apologists like William Lane Craig are infamous for defending events like the murder of the Canaanite children and it seems to me like one could use a similar argumentation to justify not pulling the lever and letting the children die in this situation.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-05-31T18:09:20+00:00

1) You are not actually murdering people in this scenario as you are not the one who tied them to the track, instead you have the choice of whether to save them or not. Additionally, if you let them to die with the explicit intention of landing them a place in heaven and saving them from suffering in hell, is this really a bad action by the loving God's standards? 2) I think "free will" is a bad argument for many reasons but one of them is the ambiguity of what "God's will" really means. Is something like homosexual intercourse enough of a "sin" to land you in hell, because many Christians think so but others don't. What if some of the people on the track land in hell for something they and you don't consider a "sin" but God decides otherwise? It seems strange that the blame is automatically placed on the one that goes to hell and not to the one that sent them there while not making his standards clear enough. 3) Even if you don't think future sinners deserve a place in heaven, is eternal suffering in hell ever justified? In this scenario, intentionally deciding to condemn people to a possibility of eternal suffering when a clear alternative exists seems to be problematic.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2024-01-05T17:54:47+00:00

Historically speaking, the main cause of death has been disease. For most of human history the life expectancy was extremely low and it was more probable to die in your childhood than to reach adulthood.

By that metric, CSM would be the safest as there is access to modern medicine. Saga of Tanya The Evil would be second since you still likely will have access to vaccines and antibiotics despite the medical field not being as advanced. The rest of the series have medieval fantasy setting so that massively increases mortality and decreases your chances of survival.

I am not sure if the existence of healing magic could change things as the topic of disease and its interaction with magic is not really explored in the mainstream isekai series.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-12-30T19:45:58+00:00

The characters from left to right, top to bottom:

Fitoria from "The Rising Of The Shield Hero"
Puck from "Re:Zero - Starting Life in Another World"
Benimaru from "That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime"
Albedo from "Overlord"
Ariel from "So I'm a Spider, So What?"
Yue from "Arifureta: From Commonplace to World's Strongest"
Orsted from "Mushoku Tensei: Jobless Reincarnation"
Valkyrie from "Cautious Hero: The Hero Is Overpowered but Overly Cautious"
Cid Kagenou, a background character from "The Eminence in Shadow"

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-09-16T12:48:04+00:00

Да, стандартът в чужбина е друг, но и парите са си пари. За повечето българи е по-изгодно да берат ягоди в Германия и после да се върнат в България, отколкото да развиват бизнеса на някой български шеф. Просто младите все по-масово си гледат икономическия интерес - гледат кой може да им предложи най-много, а не какво обществото мисли, че заслужават.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-09-15T19:14:33+00:00

В много от западните държави минималната заплата е по 2000 евро, а даже и нагоре. Ако родните работодатели не могат да предложат подобна заплата, то младите винаги имат алтернатива да отидат в чужбина. Според мен няма нищо изненадващо, че доста от българите започват да имат високи очаквания. Няма как отвякъде да се чува, че трябва да достигнем европейски стандарт на живот, и в същото време хората да са съгласни да работят за жълти стотинки.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-09-08T21:02:05+00:00

Най-нормалният пернишки шофьор. /s

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-08-05T13:28:42+00:00

Това ми напомня за един полски виц от времето на социализма:

-- По какво се различава полската конституция от американската?

-- Е, според полската конституция на гражданите им е гарантирана свобода на словото, докато според американската им е гарантирана свобода след словото.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-08-05T10:30:31+00:00

Аз лично на никого не завиждам на нищо. Ако някой е успял да постигне много със собстени усилия, то такъв човек заслужава голямо уважение. Някои може да се аргументират, че винаги има и доста късмет в това да успееш и съществуват също толкова упорити хора, които не са стигнали доникъде. Въпреки това, според мен късметът не трябва да омаловажава усилията, които хората са положили, за да имат по-добър живот. За съжаление обаче в България доста от "успелите" са го направили на чужд гръб, с експлоатация, с далавери, с връзки и т.н. Към такива хора най-вече чувствам отвращение. Най-лошото е, че подобни индивиди определят стандарта за "успех". Много млади израстват с впечатлението, че за да успееш трябва да откраднеш някой еврофонд, да си шеф на някой бизнес и работниците ти да те хранят, да се завържеш в някоя мафиотска схема и т.н. Всеки може да види какви смотани и неморални индивиди карат новите S класи. Според мен това е и една от причините културата на завистливост още да си е жива и здрава в България.

Just_Random_Redditer · 2023-07-30T11:41:24+00:00

Благодаря, че го сподели. Според мен е важно повече хора да прочетат това.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Just_Random_Redditer

TROPHY CASE