Im just a silly lil guy

In theory I talk about math and theology. In practice, I mostly just meme. Filthy Papist. Chad Centrist. Caps fan. I only Simp for my wife

[traditional-latin-math]

Through my Cringe, through my Cringe, through my most grievous Cringe.

[catholicapothecary]

thinking about the freud meme where the guy is like “doctor, i’m attracted to women” and he goes “let me guess…your mother, she was a woman?”

[traditional-latin-math]

[traditional-latin-math]

We've heard of Daddy Long Legs yes, but what about Mommy Short Arms

[traditional-latin-math]

[traditional-latin-math]

We've heard of Daddy Long Legs yes, but what about Mommy Short Arms

[traditional-latin-math]

WHO ARE YOU!???????

Why did you suddenly take over my tumblrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Im so confuse. @¤@

Idk why I never saw this ask from February but here we are lol. Also, I don't have an answer for that lmfao, I post in infrequent but frenzied bursts, maybe you logged in when I was posting a bunch.

[traditional-latin-math]

Do you have a scapular?

Like, somewhere around my house probably, but I've never worn one.

[traditional-latin-math]

Life Bus for Ugly

[beardedmrbean]

[duckdotcom]

would you put a discarded fruit sticker on my forehead in whimsical jest yes or no

[finleycannotdraw]

reblog to put a discarded fruit sticker on the forehead of the person you reblogged from in whimsical jest

[blond-shell]

[traditional-latin-math]

>Be me

>Baby

>Asleep

>"CUDDLE"

>refuse to elaborate

>go back to sleep

[thethirdromana]

Putting the term "Catholic guilt" on a high shelf where fandom can't reach it until everyone learns how to identify characters who are very very clearly coded as Protestant.

[queer-crows-nightmare]

[traditional-latin-math]

What if they made acetaminophen specifically for men and called it Guylenol what then

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Three days every year this is all I see

[supreme-leader-stoat]

There's this recurring argument in certain circles and especially on tumblr that posing a risk to someone actively victimizing you in some way is always unacceptable, but particularly if it's 'disproportionate.' If someone breaks into your house and gets shot, that's disproportionate because they 'probably' weren't going to physically injure you (worse if they weren't themselves armed with a firearm, how dare you engage in an 'unfair' fight). If a mugger gets killed because their victim fights back that's disproportionate because how dare you value someone's life over the contents of your wallet. If a woman stabs her would-be rapist and he bleeds to death that's disproportionate because 'rape lasts a few minutes, death is permanent.' If someone's harassing you by smashing your mailbox and wrecks their own arm after you reinforce it that's disproportionate because hey, it's not like they broke your arm, just your possessions.

And I feel like an alien every time I encounter this sort of thing, because it's so antithetical to any kind of logic or self-consistent ethical framework I can wrap my brain around. It's taking the genuine virtues of mercy and valuing human life and blowing them out of proportion into grotesque parodies of themselves. The victim here is not the one responsible for the ultimate outcome.

Does that mean that we should approach everything with infinite escalation forever? Hell no! But that doesn't change that almost all 'disproportionate' escalation the victim performs is dwarfed by the act of trying to harm an innocent victim in the first place! If I take the 'total violence' of a situation from a 1 to a 3, I've tripled it, but if I take a previously non-violent situation and amp it up from 0.00000000001 to 1, I've scaled it by an insane degree that makes that factor of three look minuscule despite technically being a lesser net increase.

And it's never even applied consistently! The victim has agency and is responsible for their role in escalating things, but the aggressor isn't held to the same standard. They're infantilized, they're treated like an automaton, the damage they do is treated like a foregone conclusion when the entire situation could have been avoided by them simply not going out of their way to hurt someone else. Is the victim's choice to react when backed into a corner somehow less predictable than the attacker's choice to harm someone unprovoked?

[traditional-latin-math]

Whoever invented the phrase "like taking candy from a baby" has clearly never tried taking anything from a baby

[no-mere-mortals]

[traditional-latin-math]

So jokes aside, I think the real answer is not that they're So Strong™. They are definitely stronger than you think, but they still aren't all that strong. It's obviously incredibly easy to Simply Overpower a baby. But doing so would hurt the baby as they are incredibly fragile, and you instinctively know this, so you pretty much only use Full Force on a baby if you're trying to protect them from serious danger, which removing hair, candy, toys, etc never is.

So the real trick isn't so much taking the candy from a baby. The real trick is taking candy from a baby without applying enough force to hurt their precious little hands.

[traditional-latin-math]

"Thank goodness girls aren't are rough and tumble as boys" I whisper to myself, as my 1 year old daughter form tackles my 3 year old daughter.