nefonous

Well, context definitely matters. We don't know what you did, how you did it, if she was with her bf, how sane was her bf etc etc. I don't want to negate your personal experience but I doubt it was just normally casually "talking to a girl" that got you in trouble in a normal situation.

Also 2015 is almost 10 years ago, it's not really accurate to define it as the current situation.

As for my source, I'm white, my wife is Korean, my ex was Korean, and I hang out alone with female Korean friends a lot. Some very old grandpa may be not very happy about skinship in public, but that's all. Never to the extent of being attacked or harassed, it's usually just looking at us a bit with a grumpy face.

This being said, it's not all perfect. Some families may be less open than others in accepting a marriage with a foreigner (old generations, young people just think it's cool usually). And not only about white people. The mom of a friend was grumpy about her son marrying a Japanese girl, for example (even if he lives in Japan) But even so, nowdays is rarely open hostility.

Of course idiots are everywhere. So I'm pretty sure there are young guys saying "white guys steal our women!1!!" and getting angry.

Also, an important note is that these days the fight between "feminist" Korean women and men against them is getting bigger. This can influence especially the mind of young men. I was approached by a Korean boy asking me about how women are in my country because all Korean women sucks and are terrible. In that context, I'm sure some guy will use dating a foreigner as an excuse to say how shit and easy Korean girls are.

Anyway, exceptions aside the average population is pretty much fine with it, especially in big cities. It's not like Korean men don't like white women too, after all.

Sorry if this is too long, but we're all here to share knowledge about those countries anyway

Don't know about the rest, but the South Korea part is simply complete bs

Castrato is just Italian for castrated or neutered, even used with animals albeit mostly used referring to males. Sometimes it's even used figuratively. It would still work perfectly with your example, I think

That specific word in Italian has multiple meanings, one of which being something like "excessive/useless detail or addition, especially when done for the cool factor only" and another being "gayness".

Without the full context of the sentence, it's very hard to say what he meant or what he was saying.

Of course the word is still originating from the slur and shouldn't be used by the pope, but it's technically possible that wasn't even used in relation to any minority (just as much as the opposite)

Unless I missed some extra info or source that has the full context, it's hard to say

In Italian it just means "ready", but in English is used in a completely different way. Probably Sweden got the usage from English

You're totally right, the content of your posts is not considered personal data (because it isn't) It's more about profiling data that can be connected back to your actual person

Stated as a fact with no emotion or judgment related to it. So that excludes mourning for it, which was the point I was making in my reply which was more than clear enough.

And I'm sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic how you're the one saying reading comprehension isn't that hard after failing to understand both Nietzsche and my comment.

You suggested them to read Nietzsche and from it you got he mourns the decline of religion through all of his works? Maybe you should also get a re-read.

The decline of religion is stated as a fact, killed by men's rationality and evolution. As any evolution it has opportunities and risks, in this case the bigger risk is the loss of morality.

But the only thing he clearly advocates for is overcoming religion and God because they are not needed anymore. The new Man should make its own meaning and rules.

It's the whole concept of the übermensch which is the single central point of his all system.

The quote is not supposed to be his opinion (not directly at least), it's a character in a story.

It's like taking the stance of Cephalus in the Plato's Republic and say it's Plato's opinion, while it's clearly just a tool to let Socrates speak.

I love how people here try to put this in practical terms like "when you need to pay something 100 is better". It's infinite. Infinite. The whole universe is covered in bills. We all would probably be dead by suffocation. It makes no sense to try to think about the practicality of it. Infinite is infinite, they are the same amount of money, that's all.

Never. Not being started is its definition itself

Unless you make it relative to something else. Now is the future of before, and before was the future of a earlier before

That's not really how it works. If someone can evolve the standard he's totally free to do it and nobody would object. Standards are by definition collaborative, they can be evolved.

I think the matter was around forcing a proprietary cable, which was also worse and expensive