My parents tell me they love me unconditionally, but only if I fit their expectations, which I do not.
post
men in particular say this all the time, too
"i would kill for my wife" would you do the dishes for your wife? the laundry?
it’s easy to talk about sacrifices you’re never going to have to do, especially when they make you sound so badass
but actually doing stuff to improve people’s lives around you is much harder than just talking
"I would die for my wife"
How about living for them instead? Dedicate your life to them while it's still valuable.
For years my wife and I have talked about who would outlive the other and we both constantly say the other will (it's pretty damn sad to think about going on without each other). Very recently I changed my thought process and would prefer to live longer, if only to spare her the pain of going through that feeling of loss.
Too much work, dying is one and done. Easy, really.
Something something no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Dying literally is doing nothing.
Absolutely, I think humans want the honor of spectacle and not the labor of the mundane
Hell, how many would choose not to kill for their wife? Say someone sexually assaults her and she doesn't want her husband to kill the perpetrator. Because, I've been in a similar position (no opportunity to actually enact the violence though) and I suspect a lot of these men wouldn't. They aren't wanting to kill for their wives, they're wanting to kill to maintain their sense of safety and self image as a protector.
In such a scenario, the will of the victim is paramount. As much as my rage that my wife had been harmed would motivate me to go full Punisher, her desire to not lose my to a prison cell or the grave would make her tell me to allow the justice system to work. I would follow her wishes but anything I could do that wouldn't taint the evidence needed to convict I would do.
I do.
In fact I do most of the chores in my house because my wife's hobby requires frequent absences.
In my opinion "I would cross border for better life for my children" is looked down because it lacks "patriotism" or whatever the call pointless nationalism nowadays. Personally if my country was in any danger of being invaded, you can find me and my family at the border faster than media can send their crew there to film it. And I say it while my country borders Russia.
In loving relationships it's mutual. Wifes would probably also kill for their husbands. The division of labour would also be split somewhat equally.
When one would do labour or killing depends on context. I'm more likely to accept some labour on request from my spouse, than i am to accept an order to kill their enemies. But we are still honest when we say we would kill for eachother. When it would make sense, in some extraordinary situation, that is. I don't expect that hypothetical situation to ever come up though.
To be fair, how often would you need to kill someone to defend your wife? Dishes and laundry on the other hand, you have to do on a daily basis. Do the math.
Also, it's always "I would kill for my child", not "I would take a job at a health insurance company, denying the claims of people who need health care to live for my child". Always the big dramatic moment, not the mundane daily dreary murder by increments using statistics.
They just like the thought of killing
It's the same people who love Trump if he were to shoot some one on Fifth Avenue.
But would hate him if he gave people the COVID vaccine on Fifth Avenue
Nah they would flip around and justify the second scenario in their heads. Just like they are defending him for high gas prices after blaming biden for high gas prices.
They would not hate him for that, they would move the goalposts like they always do for their precious leader.
Away with thee walldoms 🌬
Dissolve the beatling 🧼 ❤
Birth hives of samhold 人人
I still don't understand most of your new/revived words but I support the sentiment I can guess (no more borders, humanity as one, something like that?)
I expect that people dont understand. I just try to express what feels true to me using words that makes sense to me. Feel free to ask what I mean with my words if you are curious. There's no shame.
Walldom is a relighting of territory. Its a relighting that emphasize how might sets up arbitrary walls or borders which they claim authority over.
Beatling is a euphamism for heart in that it is something that beats. The heart is a symbol of the center of something, in this case the heart of the walldom. So beatling is the heart of the walldom.
i think a lot of these people would love to kill, for whatever reason, even for their children, who they otherwise treat as possessions.
Violent racist boomer narcissism strikes again!
Cherish something and potentially sacrifice yourself for it?
No.
No, kill, main, destroy randomly assigned enemies, then tell your kids you did it for them, and they're ungrateful if you do not worship their hateful bloodlust!
The people complaining about the border crossing thing are logically equivalent to the people getting killed for somebody else's children, rather than the people doing the killing for their children.
So that tweet is not a like to like comparison and it IS logical that some people both and at the same time would kill for their children AND dislike people crossing borders for theirs - not the same side of the action and not the same kids.
The beliefs of the anti-immigrant crowd are Logical if they genuinelly believe that the downsides of immigration for themselves outweigh the upsides. Where these beliefs are open to dispute is in the truthfulness of the "information" which they used to reach the conclusion that immigration is bad for them and in the Ethical and Moral aspect of how they think immigrants should be treated.
PS: And I just want to add that it's a personal peeve how the whole Immigration subject has been reduced (probably by slimy Politicians and Think Tanks) to one-dimensionality by both sides of the Identity Politics theatre in broken "Democracies" and then parroted by unthinking simpletons, when even putting the whole "should there be nations and borders or not" aside, I can think of at least 3 different Moral principles that should inform one's views on the subject of people from some other country coming to live in one's country: The Duty to Help those suffering (which yields the concept of Refugee), the Duty of a Host to invited Guests (which applies to the treatment of Legal Immigrants) and what is acceptable to do to uninvited outsiders (which applies to Illegal Immigrants who came to improve their personal upsides, not because of "suffering") all of which yield way more moral conundruns than the one-dimensional take (for example, how bad one's lot in life needs to be to trigger the Duty Of Help of others), introduces the question of were are the limits of one's capability to help (the Duty Of Help takes in account on how far one is capable of helping) and even introduces an additional Active element (should we activelly seek the worst off to help them?)
Without the slimy fake left (or just plain incompetent) politicians doing their loud performative "moralism" on top of the Think Tank created hyper-simplification of the subject of Immigration, the Far-Right would have way more trouble engaging people with their simpleton anti-immigration slogans, because for example only the worst of the worst kind of people would deny the Duty Of Help or the Duty of a Host to invited Guests - this shit should be discussed in the context of a Moral framework, not dealt with with sloganeering.
I think that your third principle has also been largely damaged as a moral question at least in America. "What is morally acceptable to do to an uninvited outsider?" In a lot of people's minds the answer is whatever you want. Things like castle doctrine have led to a "shoot first, don't bother asking questions, just assume the worst" ideology propagating through our culture.
Well, in all fairness that one specifically isn't really a principle and more of a slot were you fit one or more principles, for example the principles behind Human Rights and Justice.
But yeah, people for whom other people have no inherent rights and whose view in general of what is Just (and hence of Justice) reflects that, will have abhorrent ideas about what is acceptable to do to uninvited guests, so it is entirelly logical for somebody who thinks somebody entering their house uninvited should be shot to also think extreme force should be used against illegal immigrants.
However, my point is that even such people might be made to have a different views towards Legal Immigrants and Refugees if the take on the whole subject of Immigration also includes the Duty Of Help and the Duty Of A Host Towards Invited Guests.
As it stands now, such people are simply against "Immigrants" as one big blob.
Killing is easy, it's an instant decision but crossing borders can take a lifetime, and in most cases people never reach ashore/across.
top 50 comments