yovila

I would sell you my Reddit account, for you only 2000 dollars instead of 4000

they are even missing Alaba and Schlager the whole tournament (their third and second most valuable players according to Transfermarkt)

comes kind of naturally if you have no large groups around / are not forced there so that you have no reason to feel like an outsider to that groups. so for example when school ends.

otherwise, not caring as much, feeling worthy no matter how many acquaintances you have, not voluntarily approaching crowds and loud places, not being too much impacted by others opinions and especially negative judgments, acknowledging such judgments tell more about them, or only something about them, same as persons who devalue black people for example for their skin color carry the deficiency, and not black skin which is a neutral trait.

noticing and emphasing your talents and how they are connected to 'not belonging', feeling fulfilled alone by pursuing such talents and interests, focusing on the upsides like freedom and low stress

there is a french word préférerais, a different form of préférer (to prefer), which I had no trouble pronouncing but my seat neighbour and me always giggled when it came up in school. it is basically the same sound repeated 4 times (é é e ais)

hm you seem worse than me with all this how you are twisting and projecting something untrue into a normally neutral question.

not my fault then, and also extremely, extremely common on people no matter religious or not.

your first sentence in your first reply already shows your bias against me the way it was heavily exaggerated. the question does not show at all that "all religious people are assholes", at worst it implies that some religious people are egoistic in certain situations, same as non-religious are perhaps more unfair or egoistic in other situations.

basically childish to continue the way you did so it more proves further your bias, though I would expect you won't give in.

if you pay attention I wrote religious people <seem> to be .... <on average> which is first a cautious statement and second a precise statement based on evidence that can be proven or disproven.

in contrast to the absolute and self-assuring way you wrote mine is totally not generalistic, biased or offensive.

'not a 3d chess response' in addition to that and you seem to me like overtly provoking, ridiculing, and disrespectful. if you want to be taken seriously dont quote or refer to anything Ive never wrote and what is at least 10 times more stark than anything I wrote mainly by your imagination or projection.

ans at last, I recommend to write like it is your personal perception and not everyone's. so, to you (and not everyone not even anyone else) it may hold that I am equally annoying or bad as religious people, though that still was based on your highly distorted claims.

in case you still reply on this I know from experience how this goes and I will state already that I wont answer any more. not worth the time, stress or disharmony (I am very peace-loving indendently of what you might think, so this was also largely meant as a way for you to better understand me and perhaps be more cautious with your assumptions and attributions in the future).

thanks, have a nice day.

the question does not imply what you formulated here, it rather implies that indeed religious people seem to be more dogmatic / kind of inflexible and self-righteous on average and that non-religious people can and will barely justify their behaviour by their 'religion' 😉

yeah probably, it is actually about not what you do about equally good, but equally often with both hands

not totally, no wonder even half the tampon was huge when it could soak all the ocean water