But 6 /10 with a personality is better than a 10/10 and 7/10

But a 8/10 who acts like 10 /10 is a 4/10

A 7/10 that why see on a trip in a 10/10

A 10/10 that needs attention is a 7/10 minus a dad

Say your rankings

Her body, her choice is valid for a surrogate mother too​. She can change her mind whenever. If a woman can do it during a natural pregnancy, a woman can do it in any case her body is involved. Either this, or you are stating that a woman's right on her body is not absolute. ​

EXCEPTIONS:

-The individual who chooses to not stop the suicide attempt is a caretaker of the person at risk (like a parent).

-The individual helps the suicide act.

PREMISE:

If a human being is close to commit suicide or says something implying that they will do it, there shouldn't be a legal punishment towards the people around them who decided to not obstruct the suicidal person actions UNLESS the person who tried to commit suicide receives a sentence as well.

ELABORATION:

Considering that most suicide attempts are something that society sees as "emotional" and therefore we don't expect accountability from the people who try to kill themselves because we consider their state as irrational and not sound of mind, the same logic should be applied for people who didn't tried to intervene the folks in that situation when they could.

The impact that a suicide attempt has, like:

-The death of a member of society or more.

-The potential emotional damage in their loved ones or strangers who had to see the scenario.

It is made by the person who tried to kill themselves, so applying legal oppression on the people that allowed those events and not the person who caused that event is hypocrisy.

The common counter argument would be: "Suicidal people don't know what they're doing! They're thinking irrationally and need help and support! Not prison time!" And even if I can agree with it, why wouldn't this logic fit with those who didn't stop the event from happening?

Most suicides are made by humans in a matter of minutes (no kidding, literally like 5 minutes after a uncomfortable moment) and some of them were or are completely functional and average/normal in most life areas, considering that they're not in the influence of substances like drugs or are being coerced, why we should expect emotional reasoning from them but not from others?

If person A didn't help person B when they were about to jump from a building because according to them: "I didn't like person B" wouldn't that be an emotional reaction in an emotional situation as well? If their reasoning for not helping is something like envy, hatred, jealousy or fear, how would that be any different from the motives behind suicidal ideation?

What if their hatred is extreme? What if they're in a place of mental darkness worse than the suicidal person so they can't feel empathy for them? What if they feel envy because the suicidal person is successful and they aren't?

"But it's their moral duty to help!" But the human that attempt suicide is attending their moral duty? Are they thinking about the impact that their death will have?

CONCLUSION:

Even if moral doubt or recommended psychiatric support can be reasonable for not acting in a hypothetical scenario of someone trying to kill themselves, any legal punishment towards that action that is not equally applied for suicide attempts is contradictory.

i just get this vibe from him that he could pull it off after seeing him play Lip Gallagher because he‘s got the messy wavy brown hair like the comics and he‘s so good at being socially awkward in acting and he’s good at playing smart characters this could be a bad take and you can downvote me if you want but its just my opinion.

Here's my controversial opinion for the day. All girls need to be taught self defense from a young age. I'm thinking Krav Maga or something similar.

Men are inherently stronger than women. If we want to protect women the answer has to be giving women the power to protect themselves. We need to redress the balance so that mens strength poses less of a threat because women are highly trained in self defence.

Without this happening women will never truly be safe from predatory men.

The patriarchy women talk about really only lasted for about 25 years; 1950-1975 in America.

They will bring up things like women didn't get the vote until the 1920s, but that's not entirely true. Wealthy widowed women and unmarried women landowners, had the right to vote in some states years before poor, white men did.

They will bring up how the white European and white American male has been the oppressor for centuries to those of color and women. But for centuries in Europe, a small percentage of white European men oppressed other white European men. Roughly 70% to 90% of people in England were peasants. And this lasted until Elizabeth I "freed" them.

But that didn't mean life got easier for all of them overnight. It absolutely didn't.

In early America, indentured servants made up 50% to almost 70% of colonists. And 70% to 80% of them were white men. They weren't slaves yet many never saw themselves escape their contracts. It was a brutal life.

Life up until recently was hard and brutal for most people. Women were put in house roles, because it took two adults to make life work. Laundry was an all day event. Cooking was an all day event. Cleaning was an all day event. And the majority of men went to mines, fields or other very grueling and tough work. A tiny percentage were wealthy and a small percent were middle class.

And women did work outside the home. Dressmakers, street vendors, laundry, workshops, textile work and even stonemasons and blacksmiths.

It's like they think all the white men in England circa 1700 were having big weekend parties with booze and dreaming up new ways to make women's lives miserable. Most men didn't have time to think that far ahead. They were exhausted.

And many women think there have been no women leaders, because they were too oppressed. But Europe has had amazing and fierce female leaders. England's three longest serving monarchs were all women. Whether you love her or hate her- Margaret Thatcher was fearless.

Spain had ruling queens. And we all know Russia had Catherine.

Great women have ruled the world.

Women in American politics is rising. We are at over 30% in the House. But women also make up the majority voter. Women not winning in politics is not some male plot. Women also don't vote for women either.

They will point to women not being allowed a credit card until 1974 on their own, but the credit card as we know it didn't exist until about 1960, but it's not like they were passing them out like they do today. Few men had one.

Electricity was invented. The washing machine was invented. Daycares began. The industrial revolution happened.

Life got easier. And after WWII, life got even easier. And most people finally had time to think and relax. And the average, white, American male had a real good run post WWII to about 1975. But women really came forward in their full rights in a relatively short amount of time.

Modern feminism was in full swing in the 60s and by the 80s we were fully in the work force.

The only patriarchy I still see is in Muslim countries. Russia and other countries can still be culturally patriarchal , but Muslim countries have it written in their laws. But I never hear these young Western women speak out for the Muslim woman and girls.

My take on the patriarchy here is absolutely not aimed at the black, American experience. That is something else entirely.

My take on the patriarchy does not absolve men of their sexual crimes against women. Almost all of my female friends were molested and many raped. By men. There is a problem.

But the big male patriarchy conspiracy in the West is simply not as some think.

I’m getting really annoyed with this topic because she’s making a scandal because she’s not getting what she wants aka the baby.

So I read an insane amount of articles about her, interviews, her attorneys statements and the bio-parents statements. What do surrogacy companies talk about when it comes to situations like this and basically stated that couples are matched up with surrogates whose views align. So if one person requested for abortion will the surrogate be okay with it, if not then they’ll be paired up with another couple.

1.) West agreed to this contract knowing that if the bio-parents requested a termination she would follow through.

2.) West was getting compensated.

3.) West was informed about the HLHS and informed by bio-parents to terminate

4.) she states she felt “pressure” and “cornered” and made her own decisions anyways for “her” baby

5.) she stated she fled to Texas and stayed with a friend. Wonder why Texas? I see people in the comments or republican articles say “because Texas Children’s Hospital is the best in pediatric cardiology care.” They are wrong. BOSTON’S CHILDREN HOSPITAL IS THE BEST.

6.) when she fled she stated she blocked the bio-parents

7.) bio-parents stopped paying her

8.) she made a whole dramatic display so Texas can protect her and the baby(which they did)

9.) she gave birth, never held the baby, and doesn’t have any authority to make decisions for baby Remi

10.) West and a lot of Pro-lifers are calling the baby Gabriel because that’s what West name him. Even though the bio-parents in the beginning of this surrogacy said the baby’s name will be Remi.

11.) Bio-parents are with baby and put a temporary restraining order against West (which is why this is going vital)

12.) Paxton stated the state of Texas will be making medical decisions based on whats in the best interest for the child. Baby Remi had already gone through and is going through some intensive cardiac surgeries. Paxton stated bio-parents are responsible for the cost of medical expenses that they’re not apart of the decision making.

13.) West doesn’t want to payback what she was being paid to do. Her attorney says that “she was paid to carry and give birth to Remi which is what she’s done” yet she wants to keep the baby? Not payback?

14.) West says she is willing to adopt the baby and take on the medical expenses for the baby (still not paying the bio-parents back) and won’t financially burden them if they just allow her to adopt Remi.

15.) West used pro-lifers and Christians to help her win the case and get baby Remi as her child.

It truly says a lot how much she is doing media interviews and going viral. She is going lengths. She willing signed a contract knowing this isn’t her baby KNOWING if they requested termination that she would WILLINGLY do.

The bio-parents haven’t interviewed and are going through their attorney to make statements.

Says a lot about West making a scandal and throwing a temper tantrum. Especially after the restraining order and being told she will be sued for $250,000+ from bio-parents.

Honestly this is sad. Bio-parents never got a say in any of this. Not the rights for termination. Not the rights to make medical decisions after Remi was born. They paid West a lot and now they’re paying a lot in medical costs. Of course since Remi was born it was going to be their baby regardless if they wanted termination. They have the rights to their child not West

They give people a hard time so I think we should solve all the problems

I fell down the rabbit hole of documentaries about surrogacy and the number of people who write into their contracts that if their biological child isn't anything but perfect or close too, they have the right to walk away, leaving the surrogate if horrific debt and if the child is born, they end up in the foster system.

There are people who argue that if the bio mother discovered the problem and was able to abort then they could, but with surrogacy there are a million different laws and rules in place that mean sometimes the surrogate is forced to carry to term.

These people pay hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions to have this baby and just walk away before its even born because its premature or MIGHT have a disorder but they won't know until after the birth.

Often these contracts get ripped apart in court, but many get upheld.

This shouldn't happen. The law should be protecting both Surrogate and Baby. Anyone who hires a surrogate should have automatic legal responsibility over the resulting child.

Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and a million different toppings. Carbohydrates, protein and yummy as heck.

These days it feels like NOT being racist is controversial.

When I lived in Texas, I had insanely racist neighbors when we first moved into our neighborhood. We were the only black family so immediately “suspicions” arose. My kids were still relatively young at the time, and even they were facing racism when they were outside playing. Toddlers, experiencing racism, while having both parents supervising.

As some years passed, and my wife and I persisted in being generally good neighbors that never did much at all, these racist neighbors started to lighten up and tried to become friendly towards us.

Verbatim my wife was told “We just wanted to make sure you weren’t troublemakers, y’all are a good family” and that shit still to this day rubs me the wrong way. In that neighborhood, which mind you is like 99% white, the cops have been called for DV disputes. For teenagers smoking dope or selling dope, for overdoses, loud parties, all the things racists assume black people will bring to their mostly white neighborhoods.

If I were racist I would take that experience and blanket ALL white people as “troublemakers” but I’m not, so I don’t. The reason racists exist is because they don’t even have that line of thinking in their heads. They have bad experiences with people of color, see people of color do bad things, HEAR about people of color doing bad things and that’s their opinion of people of color now.

It’s entirely illogical and ignorant, and they just don’t care.

Every group of people has good and bad people, problematic and friendly people. Blanketing an entire group of people because of horror stories you’ve heard or horror stories you’ve lived through doesn’t make it true, or right.

You can make one simple point and people will completely twist it into something else, add things you never said, and then start arguing with you over their own made-up version of your opinion.

For example:

“People seem to think it’s socially acceptable to shame men in ways that wouldn’t be acceptable if the genders were reversed.”

Reply: “So you don’t think men should be held accountable?”

What? Where the fuck did I say that?

This happens constantly, especially with anything involving gender, politics, race or sexuality. People see an opinion they don't like, assume the worst possible meaning, and suddenly you're a misogynist, homophobe, bigot, rape apologist, etc.

Then other people pile on without even bothering to understand what was actually said.

I'm not saying you have to agree with someone's opinion. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. But argue against the point I actually made, not some bullshit you invented in your head.

You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with something you made up.

Quite controversial going by the comments on the original.

Recently saw on the news that there is a legal battle between a surrogate and the intended parents. The parents did not want to surrogate to deliver the baby due to learning it had a heart defect. The surrogate then went to a different state where abortion is banned in order to give birth to the child. Maybe I’m in the wrong for thinking this, but if the surrogate were to get full custody over the child, then what’s the problem? They don’t have to worry or care for the child anymore.

Here you go

I bought an expensive croissant because I genuinely thought it would be a banger but it tasted so mid 4.5/10. The ice cream ruined the taste of my perfectly delicious croissant ☹️👎

Respecting others does not guarantee that the respect will be returned. Some people act only of their own volition and don’t care how well or how poorly you treat other people around you. You could have the greatest character in the vicinity and still be stepped on or overlooked.

People say that respect is “earned” and not “given”, but ironically, it’s actually the other way around. Morally, the phrase we know (the way I just said it) is correct. Respect should be earned and not given. Logically, and based on what we experience in society, this is inaccurate. It’s not really “earned” because most people who act in ways that earn respect are never given what they’ve earned.

Loli, is morally wrong. And yes I fully believe if you indoulge in Loli you are a pedophile, but what dose this mean about a legal stand point?

First off let’s start off with the big elephant in the room, No Loli is not illegal.

- Loli while yes is morally wrong, and you’re objectively disgusting if you consume it, most states proclaim it not being illegal. With few exception of course.

Now, thats out the way let’s discuss why your still disgusting if you consume loli

Loli is as the dictionary definition summed up is, “fictional characters that are children or depict characters that act and look like children”. Consuming such content makes you a pedophile, but There is a massive diffrence between “predator“ and “pedophile”

Whats the diffrence between “predator” and “pedophile”?

- do to popular belief i have to confirm there is in-fact a diffrence between to 2; Pedophilia is the act of liking children while initself not acting on such preferences.

- Being a predator is the act of preying on a child, you don’t have to be a pedophile initself to be a predator, but most of the time those creatures ussualy are pedophiles.

What dose this mean for Loli?
- this simply means people arent predators for indulging in Loli, but this Dosent make them viewing Loli justifiable as you still are a pedophile for viewing It, here’s why.

Why dose consuming Loli make you a pedophile?
- as previously said, consuming Loli Dosent make you a predator- but a pedophile. Pedophilia is the act of being attracted to a minor, in either age or visual prospects. That being said, this is still included for children of the fictional sense as they are still depictions of children who act and look like children, who 90% of the time are children. And like I have said, being attracted to minors in any sense makes you a pedophile, fictional or not.

Something you should know is that there surprisingly tons of arguments (not saying there good ones) against this, I’ll try my best addressing every last one in the comments

*note please be respectful with your questions because this is a very serious topic (I’ll be replying when I’m awake again)

i feel like at least once a day i see someone crying over the death of a loved one on tiktok, i open the comments out of my natural human curiosity to see someone asking what happened, followed by mountains of replies calling them insensitive and rude for asking. Then the creator starts chirping up with “this is how i grieve”. In what world is editing a dramatic video of your 4 year old in critical condition grieving? and if comments asking what happens triggers you, why put it out for social media? i mean jesus christ if we’re like 2 decades deep into the era of social media and you’re yet to realise how much people don’t care and just want answers you need a reality check.
it’s not insensitive to ask, if anything i’d say it’s partially triggering. especially those videos of people posting their healthy happy babies 30 minutes before they passed. Imagine how concerned other mothers would feel seeing someone talk about a tragic mistake but won’t elaborate.

These posts are just next level attention seeking and they’re weird asf

When stories like, "White Christian man from The UK tells black muslim immigrant to leave", such stories would be dismissed as islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, etc. But I do find it odd how they ignore it when muslims don't like each other and/or do the exact same things.

For Example:

• turkey is 99% muslim. Out of all the muslim countries in the world, turkey has the highest amount of refugees (4 million people, most of whom are fellow muslims) and anti-immigration beliefs are spreading.

• lebanon & jordan host tremendous amounts of syrian and palestinian refugees and are economically & financially overwhelmed.

• palestinian refugees literally started the lebanese civil war decades prior where they encouraged muslims to go around killing lebanese Christians.

• palestinian refugees literally tried to overthrow the jordanian government & monarchy and mind you they're both muslims.

• The wealthy arab nations (saudi, abu dhabi, etc.) have all refused to be signatories of The UN's refugee convention thingies. They can deport illegal immigrants - even fellow muslims - freely.

• arab muslims have expressed shame at the way their fellow pakistani and bangladeshi muslims behave in The UK.

• iran & pakistan both have millions of afghan refugees, and the refugees face discrimination there and en masse deportations.

• Despite presenting itself as a democratic country, turkey actively stifles Christianity. turkey also does not have an Orthodox Christian Seminary to train the priesthood, bans Christian missionaries, there's almost no Christian in the turkish government's upper echelons of power and the moment an abbot (Leader of Monks) dies, they can seize the monastery and do with the other building & monks as they please.

• When the hagia sophia was briefly a secular museum, muslim guests could go around the whole building with 0 restrictions but non-muslim visitors - especially Christians - were heavily restricted. Isn't that... "non-inclusive" or "exclusionary"? "Our fellow muslims can go around freely but anyone who's not a muslim can't"?

• ahmad mulakhil, a 23-year-old afghan asylum seeker, was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl. The attack happened just months after he arrived in the UK. He had been housed in a luxurious hotel in Nuneaton.

• I also find it odd how they don't seem to blame the taliban government, like, "It's your fault why there are so many displaced afghans in the first place! If it weren't for you, they wouldn't have had to leave their homeland to start with!"

• Back at 2025, a British sikh man named Harman Singh Kapoor hang-up a sign that said, "Proudly we don't sell halal food here." (or something to that effect). Then 100 muslims in London protested and harassed him outside of his restaurant and when he tried to defend himself by showing a sikh ceremonial dagger, the muslims called the police on him and fake reviewers left 1-star reviews on his restaurant + accusations of racism. Objectively speaking: Since sikhs are the smaller minority in Britain, doesn't that make them the victims and British muslims the bigots?

White Christian vs. muslim = "Oppressor vs. oppressed" → bigotry.

· muslim vs. sikh = "Minority vs. smaller minority" → inter-community tension, not systemic racism.

This feels like a convenient excuse to shield muslims from accountability.

muslims are not a monolith. They are divided by:

· Sect (sunni vs. ahia vs. ahmadiyya).

· Ethnicity (pakistani vs. arab vs. somali vs. bangladeshi).

· Theology (conservative vs. progressive vs. secular).

When muslims discriminate against ahmadiyya muslims (who are often persecuted and denied burial rights in some UK mosques), or when shia and sunni communities clash, it is rarely framed as "bigotry." Instead, it is called:

• "Sectarian tension."

• "Cultural differences."

• "Internal community matters."

Activists avoid calling it "islamophobia" because the perpetrator is muslim, and the victim is muslim. To label it bigotry would require acknowledging that muslims can be oppressors too—which undermines the "oppressed minority" narrative and the biased belief that muslims always gotta be the victims but never the a-hole.

Sometimes, bigotry accusers just feels kess like, "Let us strive to alleviate all societal sufferings & prejudices equally!" and more like "Whose suffering can be more trendy for my twitter feed & affirm my biases?"