Search Results: spontaneous

Now when I say unusual I don't mean some crazy psycho, just to make that clear lol.
When I mean normal I mean:
- Someone who is generally within a person's comfort zone
- Someone ordinary and mainstream
- Very neutral
- Predictable
Cons to this trait is:
- Could get quite boring
- Not a very strong or noteworthy personality
- Since you don't get out of your comfort zone you don't learn very much or develop yourself

Or, do you want someone who's unusual:
- Might be a little out of your comfort zone at times
- Spontaneous
- Someone you're not quite used to or could easily figure out
- An odd person that likes some stuff you might consider weird or just not ordinary
Cons to this trait is:
- More risky as you are not completely sure what you're getting into (outcome could be either amazing or bad)
- You're more likely to get into disagreements
- Since they are a little out of your comfort zone it could make you uncomfortable at times if you rather stay in your bubble

Both have its pros and cons of course. But I want to know what you picked and why.

Serious question here and I am curious of what others would think because it's my second time to reject someone. I am not feeling good for knowing that I hurt someone.

For me, I consider myself bad for rejecting this guy who asked me a while ago to be his girlfriend. I think he doesn't deserve rejection but I did it anyway :( since I am more inclined in having him as a study buddy and not as a boyfriend. He's a spontaneous guy and he actually came to me to express his interest, saying that he won't make me cry; he'll take care of me, etc.

I am actually wary of dating at this age and I focus on school instead (since it's the advice of most people older than me and I also have dreams of my own). I am REALLY guilty of what I have done but I think it's what's best for now.

Am I bad? Yes or no?

I'm Australian and despite our multicultural policy, I want assimilation in our country and reduced immigration in general plus stringent pathways to citizenship.

I believe in assimilation for following reasons:

1) a huge influx of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, in combination with multiculturalism, resulted in spontaneous ethnic segregation.

2) Australia must take its own language, culture, and history seriously, and immigrants must learn this language, culture, and history.

3) multiculturalism and immigration led to adaptation problems such as school drop-out, unemployment, and high crime rates.

4) a society which does not respect itself (its Anglo-Celtic national identity) also has no value for immigrants

5) Islam has not yet reformed itself, and does not accept the separation of church and state.

6) immigrants must always lose their own culture - that is the price of immigration, a "brutal bargain"

7) Erosion of host countries original identity and minorities support their own ethnic politics

Regarding the minimal immigration intake I'd prefer, I'd like it to favour Westerners in general as they share our values and outlooks on life and can fit into society easier. The immigration policy should be biased against Asian and African migrants and restrict their ability to move here.

what are your thoughts on this subject? any stories to tell/

As simple as the title! Tell also why you chose how you chose.