if a lesbian acts like a heterosexual man u can't call them out for doing that. they will reject the premise whole cloth. and yet, I've seen it occur a few times now. interesting phenomena.

seen from Netherlands

seen from Spain
seen from New Zealand
seen from New Zealand

seen from United States

seen from Kazakhstan
seen from United States

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Germany
seen from Russia
seen from India
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Belgium
seen from Japan

seen from United States

seen from Canada
if a lesbian acts like a heterosexual man u can't call them out for doing that. they will reject the premise whole cloth. and yet, I've seen it occur a few times now. interesting phenomena.
Philosophy
I think one of my big personal limitations is an inability to maintain a great curiosity about philosophy.
I had one philosophy class in college. As it was an introductory class, the arguments didn't get overly deep. I wrote a few papers and made a few comments and the professor said I had a knack for philosophy and might want to consider a career in it.
The prospect never interested me however. My primary problem, I think, is that I have a total blind spot in trying to read the works of other philosophers, which I would have to guess is kind of a requirement to be taken seriously as a philosopher.
I skated past this limitation in class. One of the assignments was supposed to be a paper supporting or refuting the arguments of a particular philosopher in one of their essays. I chose Thomas Aquinas, and I'll blatantly admit that I didn't do anything more than skim his arguments for his god's existence. My paper spent maybe half a paragraph discussing Aquinas, and I spent the rest of the paper proving why no absolute proof or disproof of God could ever exist. I managed to pull down an A on the paper without the teacher noticing (or at least not caring) that I didn't even remotely attempt to meet the paper's stated requirements.
It's not even that I'm not interested in what philosophers have to say. It's more that when I read books written by philosophers, my mind completely loses focus. I start skimming and skipping sessions. As a result, it isn't surprising that at the end I can't claim to have anything but the vaguest notions what the philosopher was talking about.
I could blame the philosophers writing styles as being rather dry and difficult, but this probably isn't true for all philosophers. And, at the same time, I read stuff related to physics and science, also described as occasionally being both dry and difficult, with no difficulty whatsoever.
In some ways almost everyone is an armchair philosopher. I doubt I will ever be able to be considered more than this. It's not something I'm proud of, but it is what it is, and I feel no compulsion to change it.