Low key hope so, maybe that'll secure funding for Nasa...
If you value some relationship (for whatever reason, be it work, family or communal), you only need to put up with difficult people as much as the valued relationship requires you to.
As in, there's no "objective" amount of how much you need to put up with difficult people. It's defined by people you already have around you. If people around you demand that you have to spend time and energy on a difficult person way more than you want, it's on you to figure out if those people are worth it.
That a system supports a life you find worthwhile does not mean it is inherently worth supporting.
That's not the claim made in op. Op makes exactly 0 claims on what kind of life one SHOULD think is worthwhile, or what kind of system SHOULD be. The point is that it's on the reader to figure out for themselves. Again, you input your own values into the framework.
You define what kind of life is worthwhile.
You support a system that you KNOW enables it.
It would NOT make sense to NOT support a system that enables it.
That’s for you to answer for yourself.
The original statement is a framework, or a formula like a+b=c. You define what kind of life is "worthwhile" and what the "system" is. You plug in your own values. If a system doesn’t align with the life you want - whether you’re coerced into it or not - you don’t have to support it. The logic is about your agency. If you’re stuck in a system you didn’t choose, the question is: What can you do to change your situation? What kind of a sub-system can you adopt? The statement doesn’t demand loyalty. It’s about recognizing what truly supports the life you want and acting on that - whether that means surrendering, adapting, resisting, or leaving. It’s always about your judgment.
No, i'm just saying that you're executing the cycle op is talked about either way. Up to you to do what you want with that.
if you don't find that kind of life worth living, stop supporting the system. if you support a system that enables you to use drugs and listen to really old music, then i guess you find it worth living for.
What you're saying doesn't contradict OP?
The pull out method is not reliable, don't gamble on it. Don't trust guys who gamble on it.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/pull-out-withdrawal
Please use protection. If you're not prepared for the possibility of a child, take plan B now, rather than have an abortion later.
Consider contraceptive pill or an IUD, but for all random sex you really should be using a condom to protect against Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Please practice sex responsibly. If you can't, you definitely do not have the capacity to deal with the responsibility of a child.
Preferably watch this before the next time you even think about having sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9pOJbvkEA&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMweg6Yx9MHP01n_yUyaf9H
The Iran sane-washing is out of fucking control. It’s being done in bad faith across the internet.
I'm willing to bet this is partly a right wing/russian shill campaign to once again discredit and make the left look like the crazy one.
Understanding the difference between things matters, dang it.
But that's not an argument for making testing default. Men in such relationships can accept the possibility that the kid isn't theirs. Or request testing if it's important to them. This is the parents responsibility and your example is an outlier.
My point was that if the test is mandatory, or even an opt-out rather than opt-in, it creates a culture where the underlying thought is that women on average can't be trusted to name the biological father.
view more:
next ›