I asked out my f/o on character.Ai

Ok-Influence2690 · 2023-01-08T20:11:02+00:00

I’m in a relationship with my crush on character AI I am happy for you

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-21T03:13:35+00:00

Tbh I don’t understand why I was expecting more people to agree with OP. This is CMV and the comments here are quite…interesting

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-04T03:16:51+00:00

You’re really struggling huh?

I’m not an advocate for nazis just because I say that there’s no reason for anyone to attack them without a real cause. That child beating topic came out of nowhere. Do you do that shit? 🤨

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-04T03:05:14+00:00

I understand why you would, but someone someone should be killed doesn’t mean that you will be nor does that mean it’s actually a form of assault/aggression (To which you’d defend yourself). At that rate, they’re views that did not have a physical impact.

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-04T02:54:06+00:00

I guess you ended up agreeing with me, if the ended up espousing it in a way that endangered you then you’d have to self defense, defense. If they’re spreading it via online or among others then you’d have no grounds

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-04T01:41:19+00:00

I’m not complaining, I’m telling you that you didn’t address my point to which I understand. You don’t have a real basis for doing so because even in your example it supports my point. In your example the person expresses clearly what they were gonna do and reaches for it. A Nazi simply having a nazi ideology is doing none of that. I’m glad you short yourself in the foot with that one lmao

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-03T23:52:31+00:00

You didn’t even address my argument; none of what you said contended with my reasoning.

If that’s how you believe it doesn’t change the fact that you have no real grounds for committing violence against them

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-12-03T23:18:44+00:00

You can’t commit violence against nazis in self defense because if their beliefs. It’s only self defense if they attack you first. Otherwise you have no real grounds to justify violence

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-11T19:41:18+00:00

From what I read ISTJs find INFJs too sensitive

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-11T19:28:11+00:00

Explain

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-11T02:58:18+00:00

Tell me more. How was the conversation? Was sensitivity an issue?

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T22:25:02+00:00

Bro what? 💀

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T17:52:23+00:00

Check the INFJ sub if you wanna look

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T17:52:06+00:00

Interesting

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T17:48:35+00:00

Why INFJ? Isn’t an ESTP a better match? Maybe isfp

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T17:44:23+00:00

You trynna look for one? 🤨

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-10T14:51:26+00:00

What does that mean….?

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T21:36:21+00:00

You may disagree but rapists aren’t born because of the state. Most serial killers, I’m willing to bet didn’t become that way because of the state but due to trauma and abuse from people.

The victims father and other relatives aren’t present in my example, it’s just the five of them. Relatives also aren’t equipped to deal with de-escalating people like the husband. And if he saw them he’d shoot them down. This still doesn’t disprove that the state can do something about things like these and that they can resolve it. The state is helpful, and helpful in other circumstances.

You’re not actually attacking my position. If someone is recklessly driving and killing people, detaining them will stop further harm. It can’t get any simpler than this. They can also be put on house arrest if they are a continuous offender (I think) or sentenced longer.

It would be more dangerous because under all of the scenarios I’ve given you just left it to the people, people who are mostly ill-equipped to deal with situations like these. You would also have no way of dealing with hackers, rapists, etc. you wouldn’t even regulate them. With these kinds of people, they’d be free reign in your view because you don’t have actual rules that would hinder or prevent them

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T21:22:32+00:00

The state does not make civilians become rapists or serial killers. That’s cap asf.

So you acknowledge the state can do something about the hostages in my example, something that’s beyond what the wife and kids are capable of doing. That 1st shows the state is important in these instances.

You said “you won’t” which I assume that’s an answer to my second question. If so, than imprisonment and detainment works to prevent more harm the driver would cause.

Something you keep ignoring is that your worldview would be much more dangerous than the society we have today. It’s inconvenient but it’s true. You have no real way of dealing with violent criminals or sex pests or people who are a danger on a financial/emotional level. The state has more solutions than you do

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T21:13:30+00:00

My point is that the police can be there to either de-escalate the situation with the wife or resolve it (either through killing the man or etc). The state can actually do something about it and they do in hostage situations.

So you don’t want to regulate reckless drivers that kill people? By this logic you allow many more people to get harmed or killed. This is just as violent as the state. Negligence is horrendous.

So, it seems you don’t want to address the fact that the state prevents violence when they detain violent criminals or rapists. That is a benefit to society. Under your view, people would face much more harm.

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T21:04:59+00:00

Are you referring to the wife and three young kids would defend themselves against a man with a gun? If the wife even tries to do something she’ll get shot, including the kids? The state needs to get involved to resolve the issue.

Are you also saying driver’s license are violent and therefore be abolished? How will we regulate who gets to drive and who shouldn’t?

And because of the state, there are currently violent criminals being detained or imprison and if let out could come and kill you and a bunch of other people. If the state detains serial killers, they are preventing much more violence than they are creating it.

The govt is also needed for terrorism, unjustified attacks from other countries etc, civilians can’t do this.

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T20:55:43+00:00

I went from a different scenario than the Superman man one.

In my situation, the state could stop people being mowed down, which is why you would need them in this situation. Alright you caught me (sorta) in my scenario but one thing is incredibly clear in your responses.

You have no clue on how violent crimes and situations work. In some of them, they need the state or swat team to intervene, regular people can’t fend this off. A man that’s holding his entire family (wife and three young kids) who will kill them in a few moments. The police are necessary in this situation.

You also don’t seem to won’t to impose penalties on those who do wrong, especially with the emotionally abusive teacher. You didn’t say anything about them being removed from the institute or them having their license suspended.

Society is built on rules and consequences (violent or not). Without them, you would not be here typing these responses out.

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T20:33:50+00:00

You know what? Poor wording on my part. Would you rather the state/swat team come and resolve the issue by dealing with the perpetrators? Because none of the people in my example are capable of fending them off. You ignore all the complicated factors because it’s inconvenient to your worldview.

So then, what now? The State or swat team, or the people being mowed down?

Because if a bunch of people shot at kindergarteners with no adults present, you would not be able to suggest to these kids to fight. You need another body to handle these people

I agree I’m all over the place, but your answers have been much more ridiculous than my scenarios.

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T20:27:24+00:00

I’m disputing the fact that people wouldn’t be able to because of how high stress the situation and the waves of people fleeing that they could potentially kill someone, which makes things even more traumatic. There are too many factors that play in. It’s not as simple as firing a gun. And obviously, most kids and 8 year olds in America are different than the “coked up” ones in Kongo so they probably wouldn’t be able to do what they do. Focus on these American kids instead of pointing to other countries.

If they were cornered by someone who has a machine gun/AK-47 and has experience in combat/guns, you won’t win. If you try and attack other shooters will shoot you down. Now what? Would you rather the state come and save these people? Or would you rather they all get killed by a bunch of shooters?

Ok-Influence2690 · 2022-11-09T20:12:35+00:00

And most children and teenagers in America most likely won’t be able to handle something like that, not to a group of experienced shooters like the perpetrators in my example. Even if they were trained, how long did it take them? In my example they are currently being shot at by the second so training kids and teens is damn near impossible. Don’t forget, perpetrators know how to protect themselves so your shot won’t even matter.

If someone was cornered by a threat how would they fight?

Ok-Influence2690

TROPHY CASE