Alex4

In my opinion, it's okay if prostitution is legal and regulated, as long as the woman is making the decision consciously. Though, I don't hold this opinion firmly and I’m open to changing my mind. At the end of the day, it’s her body, and I don't think having sex with a client is harming her. That said, I do find it degrading—I'd rather have my daughter work 12-hour shifts in a factory than have sex with strangers. That being said, people who support an outright ban should be fully aware of the collateral damage that could cause—more desperate men not being able to get sex, which could lead to more harassment and assaults on women.

You don't need to watch the news regularly to become polarized. What these people precisely need is to consume high-quality sources. In history, there are numerous examples of wars that have started solely due to rivalry between two nobles. While 90% of the population couldn't even read.

I think Kamala did a solid job.

I will give the guy a chance, is there some video you recommend? I saw a clip a few days ago where he was going off on YouTubers who move to Andorra to pay fewer taxes, saying they had a scarcity mindset for wanting to go to an isolated place just to save a money. The guy just went full circle defending taxes If you watch telecinco you are a solid orange hehe, just joking

I'm from Spain and I've heard negative opinions about him. From the few clips I've seen on TV, he seems like one of those influencers who takes advantage of immature middle-class teenagers. But to be honest, I haven’t watched his content myself. I’ve already seen a lot of stage orange content from his predecessors.

Hey man, let me give you a quick rundown of my story, in case it helps. My father always pushed me to be good at math and to pursue a career in engineering. So, I signed up for industrial engineering. The first year went terribly, and even though I thought I could eventually pass (if I put in a lot of years and effort), I would’ve ended up being a mediocre engineer. So, I lowered the bar and switched to international trade, which still had some math but more at my level. I graduated 4 years ago and things are going great. I’m good at what I do, and I actually enjoy it. I don’t make as much as an engineer, but I’m happy. And after working for a few years, I’ve realized that the degree you choose isn’t that important. Looking back, I would’ve studied history (because it’s my passion), and if I didn’t find anything in that field, I would’ve done a specialized master’s in something like international business, international relations, or supply chain management. Please do not commit suicide over this.

He would try to guide the United States towards stage green. You can take Denmark as an example of how it would look like.

I don't like it when tourists are attacked, it is very hypocritical because we're all tourists at some point. That said, I get the complaints, though in my opinion, it's not typical tourists but rather wealthy expats and other rich folks who don't mind paying rent that's equivalent to a full Spanish worker's salary who are causing the housing bubble. I think we should fight for higher wages and try to match the rest of Europe because I doubt northern Europeans will stop coming. If you've got money, Barcelona is a great city to live in.

You answered your own question. We act robotically when we're angry. But I believe we do have some capacity for choice (distinguishing us from animals that have none), and to some extent, spirituality involves being more present and expanding that capacity.

I'm from Barcelona, and I can assure you that the locals haven't turned anti-immigrant. What we do have is an anti-tourism movement, especially against those who rent out apartments without a license. Even so, I'd say it's a movement that's louder than it is large.

Exactly. We chose to have sovereignty over our opinions and judgement, and now we’re learning to deal with the consequences. Still, I think it’s a necessary stage in human evolution.

My take is that they defend unlimited free speech as a cover for their racism, transphobia, homophobia, and so on. I think it’s in response to stage green, but I haven’t really thought it through. Anyway, in many cases, they only support free speech in theory and when it suits them. It's a twisted situation where conservatives are hijacking a right they historically haven't helped to achieve, just to defend the current (or previous) status quo.

He’s not saying we should go back to the 1950s. I think Leo is pointing out the dangers of liberalism. Just look at any field or activity, and you'll see thousands of totally contradictory opinions, some come from ignorance (most), and others from bad intentions. Nowadays, any fool can grab a camera and start talking about politics, spreading false information and hate. You need to have a damn clear head to avoid falling into toxic traps nowadays. At least in a theocratic society before the 20th century, there was little dissent within a community. When you hear elders speak, they often say that communities used to be more united. Even if part of that unity was based on ignorance, it helped prevent internal conflicts.

MIght this be a case of german rigidity? Following the law (probably a new one) meticulously and applying the corresponding penalties without caring about how it might be pissing people off?

Leo is Actualized you peasants.

Me too. The world does not revolve around the United States (which, by the way, also has high crime rates).

I find the penalty disproportionate.

They are concerned about falsehoods that are spread freely on the internet, which is a valid concern. Conservatives should agree on this and not be stubborn as a mule. Some of these falsehoods, even if they seem harmless, can lead to real violence. The debate should focus on how far we should go with these limits to ensure that the majority of people—who don’t engage in harmful practices or spread hate speech—don’t have their ability to share their opinions restricted. I know choosing an arbitrator for this can be very controversial because both sides will think the referee has a hidden agenda (which could be the case but that's what checks and balances are for). Still, I believe setting some limits is better than allowing harmful content to be spread freely.

There are many athletes who drink and smoke frequently. So yes, it's possible. However, it's better for your health if you avoid these habits. There is a well-documented case in my country of an athlete who won two Olympic gold medals and was a recognized alcoholic, in addition to smoking marijuana and using cocaine when going out to parties. In fact, in an interview, he admitted that the night before winning a gold medal, he went out partying and got drunk. This was in artistic gymnastics. He also said that almost all his colleagues did the same, reason being they are under so much pressure that when no one is watching, they need an outlet.

It's amazing how conservatives defend free speach nowadays, It goes against their nature. A true and honest conservative would be concerned about the information that is being spread in society. Censorship is not aimed at correcting internet content creators, television hosts, or politicians who spread falsehoods and lies. The goal is to prevent teenagers, who are just beginning to form their view of the world, from falling into toxic ideologies and mental traps at such a young age. 99% of grown-ups and staunch radicalists are losts causes, even more when their survival depends on it.

They already do it.

Elites disagree far less on policies than we generally think. To some extent, conspiracy theorists are right in believing that opposing politicians get along well and that their disagreements are minimal. Where they are wrong is in thinking that's bad per se. Notice how the public reacts when politicians get along well, people assume they must be conspiring and plotting something evil, while when they argue, it can be seen as polarizing society. Either way, the politician is viewed as doing something wrong or evil. Politicians mostly act based on what people want; if they act in a polarizing way, it's because they know it will win them votes. Political parties are constantly tracking electoral polls. However, I recognize that in some cases, it is the politicians who initiate a conflict. That conflict might have already been simmering in society, but there are indeed politicians who light the fuse—I know a very good example of this which happened in my country (Spain). That said, I personally believe that citizens bear more responsibility than politicians. Sometimes politicians know what the right decision is but don't make it because they're afraid of the public's reaction. In these situations I blame the politician for their lack of leadership.

That would be a mistake. It would be fuel to the most hardcore conservatives who constantly spout conspiracy theories. We need to make the mule move forward, but without suffocating it. Conservatives also tend to change their policies once they are elected. Let's say that both liberals and conservatives, when they come to power, get a reality check and that’s when they have to implement realistic policies.

My theory is that men who struggle with being loyal and honest with women haven’t fully integrated stage blue values. When you have values like honesty and loyalty deeply ingrained in your spirit, the mere thought of being loyal to your partner for life gives you a profound sense of personal pride that's hard to describe. Additionally, knowing that you won’t have any more drama in your life in this regard adds to this sense of pride. I still have fantasies about other women, but as you say, there’s a point of surrender. It’s where you tell yourself and fully accept that as long as you’re with this person, you won’t cheat on her.

In my opinion, what really drives far-right people is their fear that their country will lose its identity. They worry about seeing the native people becoming a minority, along with their culture. I believe that the arguments they use against immigration, such as it being economically unviable or creating a lot of insecurity, are simply arguments meant to captivate the moderate electorate that is not extremist but has legitimate concerns. I see a difficult solution to this, we are talking about feelings rather than "solving immigrant crime.