I think there’s mainly 3 choices here , it could be that we’ve created a society where people with little to no empathy or regard for social norms excel. It could be that amassing so much wealth in our society requires people to adopt an ethical flexibility, and that flexibility eventually spills over into all aspects of their lives.

Or, it could be that morality and ethics are simply social construct that are quickly set aside as soon as society loses its ability to enforce its social mores.

All options appear to be not very groovy.

If you’ve ever played in the surf and can feel when a wave pulls you towards the ocean before another wave pushes you back towards the beach. It’s like that, but just the undertow part. It’s very noticable.

would argue that Muslims are, by default, required by their religion to make the hajj. You make it sound as if it’s opt in, but their religion mandates it with some exceptions.

Nah dude, the vast majority of Muslims never go to mecca. It’s not a mandate anyone enforces but yourself. I think only like 9% of Muslims ever actually get to make the trip.

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

There no language in the EEZ article that mentions “territorial military outpost”.

According to who?

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

Can you link what article that falls under?

Nah, there’s pretty clear rules. It’s just that the main power in the region tends to ignore them when it suits them. Again, how is the Philippine government breaking international law?

I think that’s more plausible than China’s claim that their exclusive economic zone stretches over a thousand miles off their coast, and supercedes both Vietnams and the Philippines exclusive economic zones…

What’s your point?

You seemed to be suggesting that what the Philippines is doing is breaking the rules of unclos, but you haven’t explained how.

but flouts it at every opportunity. International law for thee but not for me.

How? They are allowed to protect the resources in their exclusive economic zone. China on the other hand is still attempting to enforce a claim that was invalidated by international courts in 2016.

Seems like you might be projecting on the behalf of China.

And how exactly does China’s claim work within unclos? The shoal is only 190nm away from the Philippines and should be part of the Philippines exclusive economic zone. If there is any questions of legitimate territorial claim it would be with Vietnam not China.

Also, stopping any navigation within your own exclusive economic zone goes against unclos, let alone stopping navigation of a country in their own exclusive economic zone.

I think it’s more so that people don’t have the time for a productive garden. There are certain times of the year that my small garden becomes the workload equivalent to a part time job.

With composting, weeding, killing squash bugs, seeding, planting, harvesting, and pickling… I can see why people opt to do something less time consuming.

First of all, that guy looks like shit for a 34 year old. Doesn’t look like the hair plugs took as well as he hoped.

Secondly… This guy just went through like eight years of school and like ten of residency and fellowship to be a surgeon, and he just threw away his whole damn life to own the libs.

No hospital with an operating room is ever going to allow this guy to practice, even if he somehow gets away with a slap on the wrist. This is the exact type of scenario that hospitals dread. Texas Childrens is going to be sued, especially since they let him access patient information after he finished his rotation. I also think there are fines for the facility where a HIPAA violation occurred.

What a loser.

No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.

Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?

Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.

Japan is still a fairly insular nation, especially in regards to the topic of history. During the Meiji restoration they basically rewrote their own history, which also kinda requires you to ignore or reshape everyone else’s history to suit your perspective. As a result, I doubt world history is very well covered in their public education.

Look up the meaning.

I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is… Attacking someone’s argument is not attacking them as a person. Who was I attacking?

Your logical fallacy is not my fault.

Lol, I think you need to relearn your logical fallacies.

I don’t. The one who “instinctually” believes it means something other than men hanging out are the people who think it sounds gay.

Again, unsubstantiated. And you haven’t explained how it would be homophobic.

First, that’s you inferring it from me not saying something, not me implying it.

Insisting a pro lgbtq website is being homophobic because one sentence taken out of context…

clarified the question, which you ignored

Because you didn’t add any clarity, you just questioned what the point of context was.

Personal bias and logic are too different things. My points are either wrong or they are right.

Personal biases affect how you developed an argument in the first place.

Whether they come from someone who is biased or unbiased does not change whether they are wrong or right.

Yes, and in this point of the argument you still haven’t sufficiently explained how a gay person labeling something as gay is homophobic. You know the entire point of the argument.

Your biases are leading you to draw conclusions from information taken out of context.

Ad hominem

Lol, who exactly am I attacking? I’m just stating it’s odd that you think you know more about homophobia than a queer author.

Argumentum ad populum.

Only because you haven’t stated your interpretation, what else is there to judge? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Straight men hanging out with each other is labelled as “pretty gay.” This is irrational because straight men can hang out with each other without being gay.

You’re purposely conflating what the author wrote, and misquoting them. Not exactly academically honest.

The quote was that “All Male Monday” sounds pretty gay. Which it does. That’s not homophobic, in fact it would be pretty rad if the context was at an lgbtq bar, and not a gathering of bigots.

Why do you instinctually believe All Male Monday has an inherent negative connotation?

Never said not suggested this. I think they’re idiots. Just like the author of this piece and the tweet, and the editors for allowing it. Multiple times youve falsely out words in my mouth

You have, by ignoring the purpose of the article and just interpreting statements taken out of context. You have also stated it’s gay people’s fault for driving men away from affection from other men.

“An all-male Monday sounds pretty gay to me.”

Yes, if someone advertised for a bar with “All Male Mondays”, It would be easy to assume it’s a gay bar. That by no means implies males hanging out makes you gay. Nor does it imply that being gay is bad, which would be homophobic.

What does context have to do with this? , when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

What does context have to do with any arguments…? Every argument requires context so you can’t just misinterpret a piece of a body of work.

You tried to attack me, by calling me homophobic

No, your argument implies you are homophobic. Being called gay is not homophobic unless the person calling you gay is doing so as an insult. You are implying that being gay is inherently insulting.

In the context of the article, the writer would have to believe their own sexuality is inherently insulting.

when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

Well at least we agree that you are homophobic, just apparently not at what level?

And yes, personal biases are important to determining the logical framework of an argument.

but point out to you that this article is exacerbating it. For that the origin of it is unimportant.

So it’s up to us straight men to decide what is and isn’t homophobic… Not the people who are gay?

I think if no one else is sharing your interpretation of the article, that may be a clue you have made an misinterpretation.

Is spewing homophobia okay as long as it’s sarcastic?

You haven’t established that it’s homophobic… Nor have you explained your reasoning behind interpreting it as homophobic.

Yes, when people, gay or straight or whatever, push this homophobia, they are partially responsible.

Ahh, so the men who go to that bar to avoid or devalue gay culture and their fight to achieve equality are totally victims. And the gay people poking fun at them are to blame… Got it.

Claiming that men socialize with each other is gay is absolutely homophobia. Quite literally. Why are you defending this as not homophobic?

They aren’t claiming all men who socialize with men are gay, they are poking fun at specific bigots. How is that homophobic?

I could be the most homophobic person on the planet and it would have zero bearing on the points I’m making.

Lol, are you like allergic to the concept of context?

Regardless of whose fault it is, it’s exists.

How do you solve a problem when you don’t know what or who’s causing it?

it’s safe to say it ain’t just straight people pushing it.

Lol, the article is dripping with sarcasm… I’d hardly say one joke article from a lgbtq magazine is causing all these young men to internalize their homophobia.

Based on your two sources, you are simultaneously claiming that men are failing to make affectionate relationships with other men because they fear being labeled as gay, and that it’s partly gay people’s fault.

Kinda feels like you are falling over yourself to make excuses for men to scapegoat the consequences of their own actions.

counterproductive (pushing homophobia) and also exacerbating a societal problem.

You are the only person interpreting being labeled as gay as homophobia. It’s only homophobia if you are already look down upon homosexuality to begin with.

That’s the whole point of the “tongue in cheek” nature of their homophobic statement: to leverage this fear of men bonding being associated with being gay.

Or, it’s a common joke. It’s not unusual for those who profess to be ultra straight, and care a little too much about how people perceive their sexuality are often deep in the closet.

internal contradiction of people who claim homophobia is bad using homophobia to insult people.

Again, being mislabeled as gay is only homophobic if already you don’t like gay people. It seems you may have some issues with homophobia yourself.

You kind of answer your own question.

Okay, so straight dudes are to blame for the straight dudes having issues, yet this is society’s fault?

by suggesting men getting together “sounds pretty gay.”

I think you are purposely misinterpreting the tongue in cheek nature of the author’s writing.

It’s great for you that you can show physical affection with your straight male friends

Not just my straight male friends, I show affection for my gay male friends too. I feel that the people who feel pressured not to show affection to their male friends are probably dealing with some homophobic tendencies.

[but let’s not pretend this isn’t a problem in our society.]

Again… I think you are missing the point of the article. The author proposes that men aren’t being suppressed, they are vicariously occurring emotional faults due to their participation in homophobia.

This isn’t a societal problem, it’s an internal contradiction that needs to be addressed by those who fear being labeled gay by other bigots.

men are already suffering for social pressure to not show platonic affection to one another, and they’re fanning that flame.

By who? The only people I hear endorsing that old timey John Wayne bull shit are men’s rights “activist”. Who constantly whine about men being suppressed, but also embrace the conservative stoic beliefs of the past.

I show platonic affection to my friends all the time, no one has ever given me shit about it.

I think that’s somewhat of a pedantic place to draw a line in the sand. I could just as correctly claim that if you aren’t committed to civil disobedience and are still paying taxes, then you are part of the problem. You are vegan, but you’re still supporting a government that spends hundreds of millions of dollars perpetuating animal cruelty on a daily basis?

Just because you aren’t vegan doesn’t mean you can’t believe that animals should be treated in a more ethical manner. Veganism is a imperfect human construct filled with internal contradictions based on western interpretation of ethics and cultural mores.