Testosterone becomes negligible compared to classes of extractors, after Nick basically living in a manufacturer for years he should have accepted the truth already. I thought you were using schools of thought to distinguish emotions from logic, so I said a few example philosophers that studied them, and how Hume tried to link both. However you came back with semantics to justify yourself, what a let down. Really, what a let down. And again so pretentious, talking about pointless discussions as if you were above us, you see that you are arguing, yes? And I still can't accept that you really tried to use semantics to justify your point. I mean really? You know the definition you used is not a FACT as you claim? Platho, Descartes, Hume, Chysippus all of them argued about what is passion/emotion. Trying to use the meaning of a word by a dictionary as a fact is so asinine. I am truly trying hard to understand how you thought that was a fact. Imagine in a debate about concepts someone brings a dictionary, reads the definition and says: That's it, that's what it means, factually, and it will never change, because that's how words are, they neeeeever change and have always been the same. It's so insanely silly it's started to be funny, really. How can you be so pretentious and at the same time say something so brainless like that.

Using facts as a basis to support a flawed argument. Yeah testosterone causes differences in both genders, but at this point you start to deviate from the initial point. I said that the difference testosterone does is negligible in this world, and trying to justify Nick's views using that is, as I said initially, using facts as a basis to justify a flawed argument. In a world where one can lift a ton, saying his sexist words were justified because men have more testosterone and are biologically stronger is dumb. And about emotions and logic, we don't even agree on what emotions are. I would understand if you said emotions are an essential part of logic, but to separate them completely? Can't agree with that, at least if that is what you mean. I don't believe one can achieve apatheia, but I don't agree with you either about us being slaves to passion, I don't think even Hume would agree with you, and he's the one closest to you that I can think of at the moment.

You said logic comes to the side when emotions are strong enough, but what about before that, when is an issue that doesn't evoke any strong emotions? You said that emotions always come last. This doesn't happen not even in animals, even animals know that trying to bite more than one can eat is not a good ideia. Could you imagine the world if what you said in the first paragraph was true, absolute madness and carnage. And what an ego, trying to analyze us both from above as if you were past these "pointless arguments", so pretentious. And it wasn't pointless, how could I know he was that dumb without interacting with him?

I don't like that, I actually hate that. Making such an overly simplified version of reality, trying to achieve these extremes. There's absolutely, no need to be a god, be completely selfless in all your actions, becoming the next Jesus or Budha. But one CAN be mostly selfless when making good deeds. I hate when people say "there's no truly selfless act" because it tries to negate EVERY GOOD DEED EVER MADE AS SELFISH! This way of thinking is overly depressive and overblown in its importance. Having some thoughts about yourself doesn't negate the action if the main focus was the action. One doesn't donate to the homeless thinking "Oh yeah, this one is making me feel great", it's senseless.

Yeah, but the question was who was the better human not the richer. And the reason for the action has a crucial role in deciding that. Giving the little money you have to help others is much different to donating to charity for tax reasons. Yeah giving money helps more, but it's about who's the better person not who helped more

kyaaaaaaaa

The selfless one, shouldn't even be a debate really

The big package will be the one with his kidney if he continues to enter cars of basically strangers

Probably her intention too in a way. Make them feel completely dependent on you. She is her boss and landlord, his life is on her hands

He's trying so hard to be kidnapped, it's kinda inspiring

what's the difference?

List reasons why life is unfair. Say it's not unfair in the end. Ok

Beautiful to see

I get what you say, but she should be thinking about her beliefs there, I hated when she started to want to be praised like a child by Nick. That moment should be for her. The time when Aria stopped ignoring the world around her, however the whole time the author kept making comparisons to Nick. I want other characters to think too. The author negated so much of her character in this chapter. He could have made her his ally, but she looked like a puppy wanting attention here at the end.

You know she's not real right? The author made her like a stoic character and made a complete 180 in 3 chapters to make her a love interest.

At 200 years? The change could at least be little more gradual

Don't like this. She was cold and confident in the whole story. Now she looks like a teenager, not a 200 years veteran

Looks like a completely new person in a span of 3 chapters, whaaaaat???

? I'm not sure how to feel about this. Doesn't feel right

SHOW THEM ARIA, RULE THEM ALL