Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters" channel.

  1. 708
  2. 497
  3. 475
  4. 426
  5. 377
  6. 350
  7. 296
  8. 240
  9. 206
  10. 187
  11. 187
  12. 167
  13. 163
  14. 146
  15. 136
  16. 130
  17. 127
  18. 127
  19. 126
  20. 120
  21. 120
  22. 116
  23. 116
  24. 103
  25. 101
  26. 97
  27. 93
  28. 91
  29. 84
  30. 77
  31. 77
  32. 75
  33. 71
  34. 67
  35. 67
  36. 66
  37. 64
  38. 57
  39. 56
  40. 56
  41. 56
  42. 56
  43. 56
  44. 55
  45. 54
  46. 53
  47. 53
  48. 51
  49. 47
  50. 46
  51. 43
  52. 42
  53. 42
  54. 42
  55. 42
  56. 41
  57. 40
  58. 40
  59. 40
  60. 39
  61. 39
  62. 38
  63. 38
  64. 37
  65. 36
  66. 36
  67. 35
  68. 35
  69. 34
  70. 33
  71. 32
  72. 32
  73. 29
  74. 29
  75. 28
  76. 28
  77. 28
  78. 28
  79. 27
  80. 27
  81. 27
  82. 27
  83. 26
  84. 26
  85. 26
  86. 26
  87. 26
  88. 26
  89. 25
  90. 25
  91. 25
  92. 24
  93. 24
  94. 23
  95. 23
  96. 23
  97. 23
  98. 22
  99. 22
  100. 22
  101. 21
  102. 21
  103. 21
  104. 21
  105. 21
  106. 21
  107. 20
  108. 20
  109. 20
  110. 20
  111. 20
  112. 20
  113. 20
  114. 19
  115. 19
  116. 19
  117. 19
  118. 19
  119. 19
  120. 19
  121. 18
  122. 18
  123. 18
  124. 18
  125. 18
  126. 18
  127. 17
  128. 17
  129. 17
  130. 17
  131. 17
  132. 17
  133. 16
  134. 16
  135. 16
  136. 16
  137. 16
  138. 16
  139. 15
  140. 15
  141. 15
  142. 15
  143. 14
  144. 14
  145. 14
  146. 14
  147. 14
  148. 14
  149. 13
  150. 13
  151. 13
  152. 13
  153. 13
  154. 13
  155. 13
  156. 13
  157. 13
  158. 13
  159. 13
  160. 13
  161. 12
  162. 12
  163. 12
  164. 12
  165. 12
  166. 12
  167. 12
  168. 12
  169. 12
  170. 12
  171. 12
  172. 12
  173. 11
  174. 11
  175. 11
  176. 11
  177. 11
  178. 11
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 11
  185. 11
  186. 11
  187. 11
  188. 11
  189. 11
  190. 11
  191. 11
  192. 11
  193. 11
  194. 10
  195. 10
  196. 10
  197. 10
  198. 10
  199. 10
  200. 10
  201. 10
  202. 10
  203. 10
  204. 10
  205. 10
  206. 10
  207. 10
  208. 10
  209. 10
  210. 9
  211. 9
  212. 9
  213. 9
  214. 9
  215. 9
  216. 9
  217. 9
  218. 9
  219. 9
  220. 9
  221. 9
  222. 9
  223. 9
  224. 9
  225. 9
  226. 9
  227. 9
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230. 8
  231. 8
  232. 8
  233. 8
  234. 8
  235. 8
  236. 8
  237. 8
  238. 8
  239. 8
  240. 8
  241. 8
  242. 8
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250. 8
  251. 8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 7
  257. 7
  258. 7
  259. 7
  260. 7
  261. 7
  262.  @peterfireflylund  You make a mistake in assuming that just because a lot of exposure is taking place it equates to having accurate information. But nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, the Ukrainians and the Russians are basically using the same design of tanks, apc's, helicopters and even jets. So if you see a wrecked Soviet looking tank and somebody slaps on a text saying "Russian tank destroyed", you have no way of knowing if it's actually Russian or not. In fact, not even markings are helpful, since it's very easy for someone to just spraypaint a "Z" onto the wrecked hull of the tank and claim it belongs to the Russians, while it might just as well be a wrecked Ukrainian tank. Unless you are well versed in being able to spot the later upgrades that Russia have installed on their tanks, that the Ukrainians do not have, you won't be able to separate truth from fiction. And make no mistake, both Russia and Ukraine have a vested interest in spreading a narrative that their respective side is winning, and both employ psyops units as we speak. So you can't just run around and assume that what you see in social media and news reports as being accurate information. People believed in all of that "Ghost of Kyiv" and "Last stand at Snake Island" bullcrap too. But it all got debunked in the end. And the footage from the first was from a freaking video game. That's how fast lies and fiction spread through social media. So like I said: more exposure =/= accurate information.
    7
  263. 7
  264. 7
  265. 7
  266. 7
  267. 7
  268. 7
  269. 7
  270. 7
  271. 7
  272. 7
  273. 7
  274. 7
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 6
  296. 6
  297. 6
  298. 6
  299. 6
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339.  @XtremeConditions  There is no "tolerance paradox" though. It's just a made up concept used to justify taking away people's freedom to express themselves in a way of their own choosing. In the truly free society, you can express yourself however you feel like while also having your property rights and employment rights protected under the law. And yes, this even extends to so called "incitement to violence". Because at the end of the day, incitement is harmless. It's mere words and nothing else. Words never harmed anyone. Actions do. And if a group of people proceed to do violence based on what the instigator merely SAY, then those people are solely responsible for their actions, and the full might of the law should come down on them like a hammer on an anvil. Nobody is entitled to excuse their actions by saying "Well this person on a soapbox told me to go out and harm minority x". You had the choice when you heard the guy on the soapbox. You chose to just believe him at face value. You chose to do what he told you, even though you knew it was in direct violation of the law and also a violation of the rights of the people you victimized. The idiot on the soapbox is just a ranting idiot. Nobody is obliged or dutybound to listen to him. Therefore it is completely ludicrous to act as if the idiot on the soapbox have committed a "crime" for merely having words come out of their mouths. It's a nothingburger. Hot air with zero capacity to harm anyone. And it's about damn time society grows up and realize this and stop bickering over "fighting words" or "intolerant speech" or "hate speech". Legalize them all, I say. But make damn sure you send in heavily armed police ready to give people a real beating with nightsticks at the very moment anyone steps over the line from merely using words and into illegal action.
    5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 4
  387. 4
  388. 4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410.  @XtremeConditions  The U.S has made a step in the right direction by having a contitution in place. The reason they can get away with tyranny in Scotland is because they don't have a constitution. Politicians are basically free to fiddle around with any law as they see fit. If they wanted to introduce the death penalty for rightwingets tomorrow, and they have enough representatives to support it, they could do it with impunity. Changing constitutional amendments in the U.S however, requires a supermajority (it's not merely enough to have a majority to see it through). The problem with the U.S right now is that there is a sizeable portion of the establishment and a president who simply choose to ignore the constitution to implement their tyranny. Best case scenario, gun owners will band together with money and sue the government in the supreme court for the Biden administrations anti-constitutional methods. It's a very high likelyhood they'd win so long as the supreme court justices haven't been packed or bought off. Worst case: you basically need armed revolution. Shooting at whatever cops or soldiers the government send to take your guns away. And yes, I realize this would be "illegal violence", but the context differs widely in the sense that the government itself is violating your constitution by trying to take awa your guns. The founding fathers were pretty clear about why there is a 2nd amendment to begin with, and it includes granting the means to the citizens to violently oppose tyrants. Even if the tyrant in question happens to sit in the oval office. The socialists engaging in violence however can't make any legal or constitutionla case for their actions. Now laws or constitutions are broken to violate their rights. The socialist can only try to justify their violence citing ideals about "equality" or "anti-capitalism". But even if they don't like capitalism, their constitutional rights are not being infringed upon by anyone, making their case for violent revolution objectively weaker.
    4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437.  @Never4534   @Never4534  Ah, that's a shame. Nevertheless, know that you're not alone in thinking about these issues and that you want to see some change. That's why the msm and social media sites are working overtime on trying to shut the topics down. They want us to feel isolated and alone with our views, because they fear our opposition if we realize just how many people there are out there that shares our sentiments. It's a good thing you've chosen to follow the issues and not just keeping your head down to avoid rocking the boat. If there's no one IRL to talk to, then do continue keeping yourself informed about it. And if there are other people, women especially, that you can broach the subject with then that would be grand as well. As a man (not british, but faced with similar consequences of mass immigration and harmful cultural influences from abroad) I can honestly say that it's more challenging than it needs to be to raise the issue, when you see and hear a bunch of western women come out and attack you for it. It's not like i'm a likely target of muslim grooming gangs or r@pists. They are. And I don't think it's possible to ever tackle the problem if the general consensus is to stubbornly refuse to talk openly about the foreign cultural and religious aspects to the problem. I mean, or course there are white, western rapists too. We can't eliminate them all, because crime will always exist. But there are sole glaring key differences between r@pists from different countries. When you've got a western man prosecuted for r@pe, he'll deny his crimes and try to prove that he's a good man who doesn't want to harm women. He knows what he did is wrong, but did it anyway out of monstrous and selfish reasons. But then you look at some of the defendants in these grooming gang scandals, and they openly claim that they've done nothing wrong. Saying that their victims are just "white british slu..ts who deserved it" because british women do not and should not conform to islam1c standards of chastity, and they're very brazen about these opinions too. Then comes the the fact that this problem is an unecessary and imported one. If immigration was significantly more limited, and higher demands were made of immigrants to abandon their home cultures and mindsets, these r@pists would never have had the opportunity to do their vile, monstrous acts. But the more we just keep the floodgates open and basically let in anyone and allow them to stay regardless of how bad they behave living here, the problem is only going to increase. I don't think it's western countries responsibility to act as safe havens for the r@pists and the criminals of the middle east and Africa. We have a right and a duty to keep them out in the effort of reducing the sexual predation on women and girls who live here, while also continuing to charge and prosecute those monsters who are born and raised here as well...
    4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024.  @renkol123  You're not allowed to vote for policies. Only parties. And when some parties have a monopoly on certain policies that you agree with/need, a lot of people feel they have to vote for that party, even if the party in question also promotes policies you dislike or even hate. That is a thing with the Social Democrats in Sweden. Basically they have monopolized the issues of workers rights, labour code and so on. Legislation and policies that a lot of people depend on to get by. Sadly they also took the woke pill, so they are (unofficially now) pro-immigration. So the choice you're left with is either you vote for them and try to keep the labour code and welfare intact. While having to suffer the effects of migration. Or, you vote them out of office, but then risk getting a rightwing government who will immediately proceed to start chopping up the labour code and destroy tax funded institutions that people depend on, just so they can give some tax breaks to the ultra wealthy and themselves. They did it before after all, when they regretfully got into office for eight years... Oh and back then the rightwingers also were pro-immigration because they could use it to get cheap labour and undermine the labour code, since migrants don't know their rights nor are they likely to join any unions. So I wouldn't trust those assholes further than I can spit. This is the predicament that a lot of people find themselves in. Me, I vote for the "racist" party who want to stop this crap. But while they are the fastest growing party in the country, it's a long way to go before they would have a majority in parliament. Also, because of this whole war in Ukraine thing, they've taken a hit in the polls. Because now immigration is a "good thing" again, so the bleeding hearts liberals can "save Ukrainian women and children".
    2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130.  @benpark5074  I don't have any problems with being gay. So that's not really an issue at all. Frankly being gay would be kind of convenient since dating and relationships seems to be less complicated from my experience with gay couples. If I see guys with a lot of fitness to their bodies, the only conclusion that I make is basically along the lines of "Hmm, that must be useful for heavy lifting or physically taxing activities". But I don't see any beauty in it. Only utility. It's like comparing a well engineered tractor with a souped up engine to a budget tractor with a weaker engine really. There's no beauty to either vehicle. The only thing that matters are the specs and capabilities. I guess what turns me off the most from the male physique is their almost simian appearance. The jutting brow, the oversized chin, the hair. It reminds me more of some kind of monkey than an object of beauty. Beautiful women don't have the same kind of simian characteristics to their appearance like men do, so that's probably why I can recogonize their beautiful features and tell them apart from the less attractive ones. And before you ask, yes, everything I've said applies to what I see in the mirror too. But i've never felt bothered by it since looking "beautiful" was never a goal of mine to begin with, and I haven't experienced much trouble with romancing the opposite sex either. So, apparently my own appearance is agreeable with the women I felt attracted to. I don't really need to understand or relate towhat it is that they find attractive, only that they do.
    1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263.  @Manannan_mac_Lir  But the thing is, the decision to use those nukes in the first place was deliberated for quite some time on beforehand. So no, it was not a matter of "hindsight" but FORESIGHT. The pacific war had gone on for a very long time before the nukes were deployed. American forces hardly captured ANY prisoners from the enemy, nor from Japanese civilians during that time. The amount of captured prisoners was so staggeringly low to be unprecedented. Do you know why? Because even Japanese civilians had the mindset that they would fight to the bitter end. Japanese soldiers were even worse. So the Pentagon crunched the numbers of Japanese troops killed in action versus Japanese troops caught as prisoners of war or who surrendered and applied those statistics to a scenario of a mainland invasion of Japan and realized that they would've ended up having to fight and kill more than ten times as many Japanese citizens (soldiers and civilians alike) through conventional warfare. So tell me, how is a deathtoll tenfold larger than the deathtoll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki getting nuked a "better" result? War is war at the end of the day. There are no "good" outcomes, only more or less deadly outcomes. Wishing that nukes shouldn't exist is about as naive as to wish that war shouldn't exist, but it does. And the fact remains that countries with nuclear weapons are safer than countries without them, since even superpowers are scared of provoking a possible nuclear conflict with smaller nuclear countries.
    1
  1264.  @Manannan_mac_Lir  Uh, it was naval blockades that cause the Empire of Japan to launch on attack on Pearl Harbour in the first place. Also what "freedom of choice" do you think the average citizen in Japan enjoyed? Have you even looked at their culture today? Even today the Japanese are extremely conformist and will do as they are told by the authorities. During the Covid pandemic their government didn't even need to issue any mandates, because the Japanese just obeyed the instructions anyway. This is what Japan is like TODAY. Imperial Japan was like that but cranked up to eleven. Every single Japanese citizen was taught from birth that the Emperor was their living god, and that every japanese person owed their life and honour to him and the fatherland. Their entire military was basically like ISIS in terms of fanaticism and devotion. And remember ISIS are so fanatical that they have no problem finding suicide bombers for any attack they want to stage. Imperial Japan was exactly like that, but had many millions of people with the ISIS mindset. So what basis do you have to even suggest that they would've just "chosen" on their own individual accord to surrender after a naval blockade? I want to hear you justify why tenfold the number of dead Japanese people is better than the lower number of dead Japanese caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Do you have any RATIONAL reason whatsoever to prefer a higher killcount as opposed to the lower one? Because to me you sound kind of monstrous prefering to see that many more civilians dead.
    1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1