They didn't redefine giving, it's literally being used for its original definition. Just add "energy" or "vibes" at the end of the sentence and it clarifies exactly how it's used. If someone sees your outfit and says "It's giving Beyoncé" -> "it's giving Beyoncé energy", your outfit is reminding them of Beyoncé. As in it is providing/offering said Beyoncé-like energy, aka one of the original definitions of giving something.
Laticauda
joined 2 years ago
There are mainly 2 types of "college is a scam" people. Type 1 is anti-education and places more value on what they typically refer to as "common sense" and think that you don't need an education to know about something. They're the type most likely to think they know more than experts and argue with engineers about bridges. Type 2 is more anti-capitalist and doesn't view education as a scam itself but rather how costly that education is and the opportunities provided to educated people who paid the price is what they see as a scam. They're usually capable of recognizing and acknowledging their lack of understanding about a topic and listen to experts because they do value education, they just think access to it should be easier and cheaper and provide more tangible results for the effort put into obtaining it. This post is probably talking about type 1.
Bro has never heard of baptism.
I agree, though I also think there's a discussion to be had about society's obsession with punishment over anything else, and how sometimes it's okay to let go of the past and appreciate that someone has become a better person and is working to attone for that they did and do good things from that point onwards, which is overall better for the world as a whole than them being forced to suffer endlessly for their past actions for the sake of vindication or revenge. If you're going to take the stance that someone can have a moral debt they must be forced to pay, then you have to likewise acknowledge that there must be a point at which it can be paid. If you try to claim that some things can never be made up for and thus some moral debts can never be repaid, then that only highlights the problem with that sort of reasoning. Because if someone takes a life then saves a life, and you claim that one is not enough to make up for the other, then you're essentially treating life 1 as more valuable than life 2. And what if they take 100 lives but save 1000? Can human lives even be stacked up against each other like that to say which group has more "value" than the other? That's the paradox of a moral debt, something can not simultaneously be priceless and yet also not hold enough value to balance the scale against itself at the same time.
In real life this can be complicated further because it can be hard to judge whether someone has truly learned from their mistakes and genuinely changed their ways, but in a fictional story you often get to see for sure that the character truly is sincere. So to tie that in to what you said, just because a viewer/reader is capable of accepting a character's redemption in a fictional setting, where they are 100% certain that the former villain has had a change of heart and feels bad and will continue to do good things into the future, that doesn't mean it's a moral failing on the audience's part. But it's also worth noting that being willing to give someone a chance to improve themselves and grow as a person instead of demanding their eternal damnation and punishment isn't a moral failing either even outside of fiction.
I mean if the villain's redemption is well written then typically the guilt from their past actions is the punishment for said actions, and their current actions are largely focused on atonement and reparation. That sort of thing often makes them even more relatable because while not everyone has killed another person, everyone in the world has hurt someone else at some point, maybe unintentionally, maybe unknowingly, maybe due to extenuating circumstances or their own trauma, or maybe because they were just a worse person at the time. Does that mean they are never allowed to be a better person and must eternally suffer for all the wrongs they've committed? Is it not better to encourage their goodness in the present than to forcibly drag them back to when they were bad over and over again for the sake of vindication? Does society really benefit from that sort of thing? And what if they end up saving more lives than they've taken? Something to think about.
Adding your body to the pile isn't helping or changing anything. There are much smarter choices you could be making instead. I don't see how how living to see another day is any more "meek" than willingly jumping under the boot and dying fruitlessly because you somehow think it's the only way to fight back.
I mean being obese will result in a hard time growing up no matter what your name is let's be honest.
Damn. When you call after 50 days can't you just book an appointment for 10 days later then?
I'm glad it's not so hard to get my meds where I live, I typically get 90 days per visit but can get more if I request it for some reason (when my family doctor moved during a local doctor shortage and I couldn't get a new one for a while, I had a doctor I saw during walk-in hours straight up give me a full year worth of prescriptions, bless her lol. I've also had pharmacist's give me extensions on my meds during times where I couldn't get in to see my doctor right away) though it's still expensive to pay for sadly. I'm not sure if it's dependent on where you live or what you take, but I take vyvanse which is definitely a controlled drug so I'm thinking maybe it's a location thing (I live in Canada).
Congratulations! You won the prize of becoming a statistic! You win a news article about your death and an expensive funeral.
I mean people who identify as agnostic generally choose to do so specifically because they don't see themselves as atheist. I'm agnostic myself and I definitely don't consider myself to be atheistic any more than I consider myself to be religious.
I think "good person" is a nebulous and generally subjective term. If some people need an external factor to hold themselves accountable then as long as they willingly seek out that accountability then that's all that matters to me ultimately, I'm not going to try and micromanage how other people reconcile with their own morality in a large uncaring universe, or act like I'm an authority on how people are supposed to be "good", all I care about is how they treat other people at the end of the day. But a lot people use religion not as a way to hold themselves personally accountable for their actions, but rather as an excuse to get away with doing bad things and dictating how other people can live their lives without having to suffer consequences. They use it to ESCAPE accountability, and that's when I take issue with it.
I mean, they're technically calling black people the N word by proxy (it's meant to essentially be white + N word to refer to a white guy pretending to be/acting black). So it seems like a case of "if you're not black you probably shouldn't say it".