☯☼☯ SEO and Non-SEO (Science-Education-Omnilogy) Forum ☯☼☯



☆ ☆ ☆ № ➊ Omnilogic Forum + More ☆ ☆ ☆

Your ad here just for $2 per day!

- - -

Your ads here ($2/day)!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MSL

2281
 In the worst cases some even use drugs, ruin their bodies and then complain why they can't ascend. Terribly poor life choices and low IQs.

2282
 A GigaChad grandfather would say many incels! :)
 For those who're not familiar with the slang -- a GigaChad (or Gigachad) is something like these men: (Ernest Khalimov and Batyr Suleymanov).

2283

Brush you teeth! Don't believe it's just a cope!


  I saw something comparatively new that is circulating in some blackpilled (pessimistic and negative) incels. It's that brushing teeth is a cope, it's useless and so on! Total desinformation and disgusting idea! Don't believe it and never neglect your oral hygiene! The bad oral hygiene (and the bad hygiene at all) usually is a 100/100 reason someone to be rejected (even when he is some Chad-tier) because nobody can stand a smelly, stinky, ill person.
 The good hygiene helps you to be healthier, younger (biological age), more attractive and it's a base for your further self-improvement.

2284
 Oh, yes, this is what I read before -- some historians noticed that the descendants of the Vikings are usually calm, polite, nice people.
 By the way I see something similar about the descendants of the Huns -- Chuvash people (they still keep a R-Turkic language which is similar to the Hunnic language) -- mostly nice, polite people.
 But it's not strange. It's normal people to adopt new behavior. For example, if your grandfather used to drink a lot, why you should follow this bad habit? You can become a person with healthier life style. :)

2285
 Yes, also that very small language -- spoken only by about 70 000+ people -- the Faroese language.

 So, you're a sort of Viking girl.  :)

2286
 Especially when there are aggressive countries ruled by one person (or a few people).

2287

If you don't give a refuge to a person who is unwilling to be a murderer then it's just a support for the one who compels him to kill

(and an assistance in turning a pacifist into an involuntarily murderer)

by Geser Kurultaev

  Things are very clear - most people around the world don't want to kill, even when killing is legal (during the wars) and when someone begins to forcibly mobilize them for war it is quite natural that most of these people do not want to become killers and/or at least do not want to risk their lives. Some of these people will, also naturally, try to avoid the hell of war by seeking asylum in another country. These (fugitives trying to escape the mobilization) are more or less pacifists. (Everyone who refuses to be part of war, regardless of his motives, is against war, therefore he or she serves peace more than war, ergo he or she is to some extent a pacifist).
  It would seem, in this situation, that any normal country should help those people who do something good (they refuse to become murderers or accomplices to murdering) to be accepted. However, something absurd, unexpected, illogical and even inhuman is happening right at this part of the process -- they are denied access in some countries! Immediately the simple question arises: "Refusers except that they have no ordinary humanistic attitude and empathy towards these people (knowing that by refusing them they automatically condemn them to war or imprisonment, at minimum) do they aso haven't a simple pragmatic logic?" I immediately clarify my question with the simple fact ((which obviously eluded the refusers), that when you return so many pacifists, then a large part of them (those who do not commit a suicide or do not end up in prisons) will be forcibly turned into involuntarily soldiers (i.e. potential killers or aiding in the killing), which will make exactly the one who mobilizes them stronger, with more military resources, and accordingly the war will last longer, and even if he does not win, the longer war will bring more death, maiming, economic, social and other suffering! Is it so complicated if you don't have enough humanism and empathy, at least to have sound logic and then to realize that it makes your enemy stronger by giving him back more army? Or will it just turn out to be that those conspirators are right when claim that in fact many of those people in power have another logic and interest: they want a longer war and all their anti-war and pacifism speeches are just a mask? No matter what their motives are, it's definitely true that to kick back a pacifist; not giving asylum to an unwilling to kill is a support for the one who forces him to kill and a form of assistance in turning the pacifist into a someone who commits suicide, a prisoner or an involuntarily killer.

2288

Да не дадеш убежище на неискащ да убива е подкрепа за онзи, който го принуждава да убива

(а и съдействие за превръщането на пацифист в недоброволен убиец)

от Гесер Курултаев

  Нещата са пределно ясни - повечето хора по света не искат да убиват, дори когато убиването е законно (по време на война) и когато някой започне насилствено да мобилизира за война съвсем естествено е повечето от тези хора да не искат да стават убийци и/или поне да не искат да си рискуват живота. Част от тези хора също съвсем естествено ще се опита да избегне адът на войната като потърси убежище в друга държава. Тези, бягащите от мобилизацията, са в по-малка или по-голяма степен пацифисти (всеки, който отказва да бъде част от война, независимо от мотивите си, е против войната, следователно обслужва повече мира, отколкото войната, ерго той или тя е до някаква степен пацифист). Изглежда, при това положение, всяка нормална държава би трябвало да съдейства на тези хора, които правят нещо добро (отказват да стават убийци или съучастници на убиването) да бъдат приети. Обаче точно тук се случва нещо абсурдно, неочаквано, нелогично, та дори и нехуманно - отказва им се достъп от някои държави! Веднага възниква простият въпрос: "Отказващите освен, че нямат обикновено хуманистично отношение и емпатия към тези хора (знаейки, че като им откажат ги обричат автоматично на война или минимум затвор) дали нямат и елементарна прагматична логика?" Веднага пояснявам въпроса си с простия факт (който явно убягва на отказващите), че като върнеш толкова много пацифисти, то голяма част от тях (тези, които не се самоубият или не попаднат в затворите) ще бъдат насилствено превърнати в недоброволни войници (сиреч, потенциални убийци или съдействащи на убиването), което ще направи точно този, който ги мобилизира по-силен, с повече военен ресурс, а съответно войната ще се проточи по-дълго и дори той да не победи, по-дългата война ще донесе повече смърт, осакатявания, икономически, социални и други страдания! Толкова ли е сложно, ако нямаш достатъчно хуманизъм и емпатия, поне да имаш здрава логика и да разбереш, че така правиш врагът си по-силен връщайки му повече армия? Или просто ще се окажат прави онези конспиратори, които твърдят, че всъщност много от властимащите имат друга логика и интерес: от по-дълга война и всичката им антивоенност и пацифизъм са просто една маска? Независимо какви са им мотивите, определено вярно е, че да върнещ пацифист; да не дадеш убежище на неискащ да убива е подкрепа за онзи, който го принуждава да убива и съдействие за превръщането на пацифиста в самоубиец, затворник или недоброволен убиец.

2289
 I know this because I learned that they're part of the so-called Germanic languages. Icelandic, Dutch... including English -- all are Germanic ones. Most of the nowadays Norwegian speakers are just descendants of Vikings.

2291
 I'd bet on the money. Once you're rich (and clever) you'll lose weight, you'll improve your style, you'll choose the healthiest food, drinks, places and at the end of the day you'll get the same or more what some handsome person like Sean O'Pry can afford. :)

2292
 Amazing! This is what I teach the people all the time -- try to be the best version of yourself (or if you can't, at least, be a better version of yourself). 8)

2293
 There is an "h" in her family name -- it's "Thunberg" (Greta Thunberg).
 In my opinion she looks good and even without popularitymaxxing she's not going to be an incel. Surely there are admirers who like her a lot.

2294
 Good. I do believe that everyone (even those, the most pretty and handsome, called "Stacies" and "Chads", "GigaStacies" and "GigaChads") should do their best to improve themselves. Because it's very easy do decrease. For example, even she (a Stacy) is 9/10 if she gave up the sports and starts to enjoy cakes, chocolates, pies, sodas, etc. daily she'll become too fat and it will make her not more than a 4/10 woman.
 I also use my every free minute to improve something -- for example, learning some new word, adding some new (or more of the old one) exercise, etc.

2295
 Yes because there are those "blackpilled" incels who (mostly) think that nothing can be done and they deny the self-improvement because they think they're so ugly that no gym, no diets, no clothes, no hairstyle, no hygiene, no study, no money can improve them.
 There are also those ones who think that there is a chance but "only" if you get a surgery (so-called surgery-maxx).
 My point is that except the most pity cases (when a person is born very deformed or when he/she is disabled) the soft-maxx (sports, healthy life, study, etc.) may at least double up his/her value -- for example if you're a 3/10 after you improve your body, skin, knowledge, skills, styles and character you may climb up to 6/10 (and then at least one person may like you).

Your ad here just for $1 per day!

- - -

Your ads here ($1/day)!

About the privacy policy
How Google uses data when you use our partners’ sites or apps
Post there to report content which violates or infringes your copyright.