True. But where does a moral code keep a person from defending themselves in such a situation?
Our whole point is that it doesn't
I thought the point was that people making a split second decision didn't art all define their beliefs.
And if it did, wouldn't that mean that the person would have had to make the choice and thus face the possibilities?
You see an opportunity and take it, again, you don't have time to weigh your options to see which is the most moral.
I'm saying that the person would have considered it before.
Granted, they might slip in such a case because of having no practice, but this could be blamed on the highest stakes of personal protection. The theory could easily not hold true for lesser stressors.
I don't even know what this says
Person might screw up in the heat of the moment because threat of death be like that sometimes and you can't really practice making the right decision.
But that doesn't mean they would screw up on less stressful things if they had made a habit of their belief.
I feel like the Divergent test is ruined by the fact that's just a glorified virtual reality experience where each item choice directly corresponds with a faction and doesn't really allow room for unorthodox responses. It's like the meme where people are discussing people's homemade Hogwarts house quizzes where it's like "how do you brush your teeth? A) Bravely, 2) Evilly, 3) While reading a book or 4) Nicely"
For example, lying to the threatening man on the bus automatically gets you out of Candor, regardless of your reasoning for doing so. One lie (while under duress) in a life of honesty is enough to make you ineligible for that faction.
I just-
The honesty test is a man holding up a picture of someone you vaguely recognize and threateningly asking if you know them/where they are. And apparently to not out someone who you don't even know anything about to a man who seems to want to threaten their life is dishonest? Yes, they could be guilty of some hideous crime, but they could also be innocent and you have no way of telling. A better test would be to see if you could pick up on any tells that the man has (after asking why he wants to know about the person) to see if he's being dishonest.
Seems pretty simple. Stars have no noticeable affect on our lives ('Cept for the sun ofc.). And there's no good reason to believe they do from what I know.
(I really love iilluminaughtii :D) I think horoscope stuff is fun until you get people to pay for it or actually scam people. I don't believe in it, but I think horoscope Instagram and Twitter pages that just make posts about it are fine, but "astrologers" who charge people in vulnerable places to hear things that won't really help them are shady and bad.
Personally I like it for the same reason I like MBTI and things like that. When it is right, it's just kind of amusing and weirdly affirming. And since so many people like it casually, it feels like you're a part of something when you participate in it and go with all the jokes- unless you're letting it define everything about you, it''s pretty harmless. I also have friends with BPD who have trouble with their identity and it's just easy for them to hang onto the "correct" aspects of their sign as a way to help define themselves, which is a healthier coping mechanism for them as far as things go as long as they don't take it too far.
(I really love iilluminaughtii :D) I think horoscope stuff is fun until you get people to pay for it or actually scam people. I don't believe in it, but I think horoscope Instagram and Twitter pages that just make posts about it are fine, but "astrologers" who charge people in vulnerable places to hear things that won't really help them are shady and bad.
Agreed. I don't care about my horoscope beyond the "signs as X" memes and going "aha I'm an Aries", but I get if others take it more seriously. But scamming people is where I draw the line.
I don't think so. Normally I'm the most "politically extreme" person around, besides the occasional whackos that leave after a few days. I think marriage licenses shouldn't exist though. (Though I guess I do oppose gay marriage, but I would vote pro gay so Idk if that counts plus you probably knew that already.)
I suppose I also oppose gay marriage as well, but it’s not my business on what people do in their bedrooms or for their love life. I’d probably lean towards voting pro-gay, or at the very least not really caring too much on that sort of stuff.
They were invented to help gov stop interracial marriage and now serve nothing but giving the gov more money to legally go through a tradition formed at the beginning of the world that should be left to religious bodies or just any random person instead of being another thing the government meddles with.
They were invented to help gov stop interracial marriage and now serve nothing but giving the gov more money to legally go through a tradition formed at the beginning of the world that should be left to religious bodies or just any random person instead of being another thing the government meddles with.
Oh woah, I didn't know that bit
I feel like if people want a marriage license they should be able to get one, but otherwise not necessary to be legally married or whatever.
I would agree, like why should I have to go to the government to marry someone? That's my life. But the only thing is if marriage weren't a legal affair, then divorce wouldn't be either and that'd screw a lot of people over.
To make sure people aren't stealing other people's money, kids, housing, insurance, etc. (even those things still happen, but to a much lesser degree if people couldn't take splitting up to court).
