Marvel Rivals Had No Business Making Peter Parker Look This Chad-like, What The Heck 💀

One Marvel pairing I'd be interested in seeing in the comics (if done correctly) would be Spider-Man x She-Hulk. I genuinely think with the proper writing and nuance, a relationship between them could work. Spider-Man reads to me like he'd appreciate a woman of her caliber.

I understand your point as well 👍

Something I think anti-abortionists (including myself) need to understand is that when you (rightfully) call out the fact that abortion is murder---or at the very least wrong, you're gonna get push back.

You're asking these women to confront a reality that's gonna force them to rethink every aspect of their life and how they see themselves as person.

Imagine if all your life you were told this thing was fine/okay to do, and that it's empowering for you to do it, only for you to find out you were actually committing evil in the process.

I doubt many people would be willing to face that reality because no one really wants to think of themselves as an evil person (lest they be a legit psychopath). Most people don't like confronting uncomfortable truths about things regardless of how necessary it might be because it's human nature to want to run from things that don't feel good to know.

Imagine if you found out that you were actually committing murder this whole time? Would you be so easily willing to accept that truth? Of course a bunch of these women are going to show major resistance because they don't want to believe what they're doing is horrible because by extension, it would mean they're a horrible person and they would have to wrestle with their self worth and regret because that's what it would translate to for them. No one wants to deal with that.

I'm not saying this erases it, nor do I believe all women who've had abortions are genuinely evil. But really take the time to look from their perspective here. Is it really any wonder that there's so much resistance/division on this topic?

People who say that abortion is needed because of the fact that rape victims exist, I feel are missing a MAJOR point in their arguments. And before you start blowing off on me, at least be willing to hear my perspective here.

I don't think it's a problem of abortion being easily accessible. I think it's a problem of rapists not having consequences.

1 in 3 women globally are sexually assaulted. Thus, the concept of a woman/girl becoming pregnant against her will unfortunately doesn't sound out of the norm at all. And regardless of the statistical reasons that women TRULY get abortions for, let's think about another aspect here.

If rape is such a common thing (which it is unfortunately) and women keep aborting the children they’re getting as a result of being raped, doesn’t that mean we should put MUCH more pressure to condemn and stop the rape endemic—which is why these specific sets of victims would hypothetically be getting abortions in the FIRST place? We’re only treating the SYMPTOMS here and not looking at the actual CANCER that keeps spreading.

If you guys put as much pressure on our justice systems as much as you push for abortion, it would probably gain more a productive response in the long run. Because I think we can all agree that we just want forced pregnancy to be stopped as much as possible.

Abortion is a rapist’s dream because then there’s a chance that if they do get you pregnant, that you’d be supported (if not pressured) to then erase the evidence of what he did to you.

If we're really gonna be saying that the circumstances a child is born into should dictate whether or not it should continue to develop, then I'm very sure a large percentage of us would not even be here today if that logic were to actually be implemented. If you look back in your family history enough, someone must've either gotten raped or put into a hard situation.

We need to crack on these corrupt justice systems that don't punish rapists accordingly, not have the children pay for the sins of the father.

I definitely don't like the way how conservatism handles abortion in some cases (because I feel besides making hospitals, there's still not much that's being improved), but I most certainly do not agree with the notion that the circumstances in which a child is made should dictate it's right to live. If that were true, I wouldn't be alive to make this post.

If rape is something you are so concerned about (as am I), then why aren't we banging on the doors of these justice systems instead of the doors of these clinics?

I'm pretty sure that if women are doing something as a result of a bigger problem, shouldn't we address the BIGGER problem then?

My Beef with Miguel O'hara Pt.3 - A Spiderverse Rant

“Oh, rancid Miguel, how do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways. I loathe thee to the depth and breadth and height My souleth have no desire to reach thee, and wants to be out of sight For I believe it preserveth mine own grace”

You know the drill by now, if you wanna read the first two parts (Part 1 and Part 2), then click the links because there’s no way I’m retyping everything. Don’t wanna read it? Then in the words of Laila, that’s just not my problem.

We already know by now how this guy has his own agenda and stubborn cult-like way of thinking in terms of how the Spiderverse should work. I had been watching Spider-Man PS5 gameplays recently when I struck absolute GOLD.

In the 2011 game, “Spider-Man: Edge of Time,” there is a specific clip in there and I promise you, when I found out it existed, it made me so happy because it let me know I’m not crazy for thinking Miguel’s way of handling stuff is absolute bullchips. And for those of you that have watched or played Edge of Time, you might already know what I’m talking about.

For any fangirls out there that will defend Miguel tooth and nail, I have a question for you. What would you do if an ACTUAL Spider-Man went up to Miguel and told him he was wrong about everything in terms of his worldview?

Well, don’t worry. You don’t need to wonder.  BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

(Video by @CCGAMING TV on YouTube)

You know it’s bad when a traditional Spider-Man is telling you that not only does your ideology suck, plus you also completely suck at your job.

And even if we were gonna go with the argument of Edge of Time using a different variant of Miguel for the storyline (but I don’t exactly think they are considering their universe numbers are the same—-that being 2099), it certainly goes to showcase that Miguel’s way of quote-unquote ‘heroism’ is pretty consistent (in that he believes innocent people should be allowed to just straight-up DIE).

The only difference between Edge of Time Miguel and Spiderverse Miguel to me (personally) is the fact that Miguel was actually willing to listen to a perspective outside of his own (and infinitely MUCH quicker to do that than Spiderverse Miguel).

But even then, it falls flat when you consider the literal fact that in order for him to do so, Peter had to explain why letting his girlfriend just randomly DIE instead of saving her is a BAD thing. So clearly the lack of empathy is consistent as well (regardless of its varying degrees). 

“Oh, but he said ‘Maybe this'll help even the score for everything the world owes you.’”

Okay? So? We’re just gonna forget that this guy was gonna let Peter’s girlfriend die without telling him ANYTHING and was planning to keep him in the dark the whole time up until that point? I’d have a hard time trusting someone after that.

And on top of that, Miguel ACTIVELY had that information in the ARCHIVES about MJ dying (meaning he didn’t want anyone to find it or be aware of it). He KNEW that Peter would want to save her and that’s why he didn’t tell him. That sure seems manipulative as heck to me.

Sure, you could argue that Peter’s a jerk here for looking through the files, but gosh darn it—I can’t even be mad at him here because he was just looking for information on the problem at hand.

Peter's absolutely right---Miguel doesn't get what being Spider-Man is about. Miguel's not a hero--he's a control freak that wants everything done his way or the multiversal highway.

Granted, I don’t know what they plan to do in terms of Miguel’s character in the third Spiderverse movie. For all I know, he COULD potentially have a change of heart. But like I said before with EOT (Edge of Time), this change of heart would only occur after getting scolded about why it’s wrong to let people evaporate on your watch.

The only reason why I have slightly (keyword: SLIGHTLY) more respect for EOT Miguel is because at least he was willing to save someone's loved one (but once again, it was only after he was called out or confronted, so even then, it's still very slimy).

I already explained the complexities behind Miguel’s so-called intentions, so don’t even try to be like, “Oh, he thinks or does this because of this—-” it’s still not a good justification for telling a teenage boy that his father should die, and that he’s not allowed to do anything.

I’m so glad I found this clip because it’s just more fuel for the fire for me in terms of my passionate dislike for this man. And whether he’s redeemed in the movie or not, there’s no way in fish chips I am ever going to let people forget that this was the same dude hunting down a MINOR. 

“Hey, kid. Sorry I was gonna let your father die for no reason and expected you to just listen due to my inexcusably flawed ways of thinking and the fact I also practically tried to kill you because I wouldn't let your father die, all the while insulting you and calling you a mistake.”

This is what I mean when I say Miguel lacks empathy (or even worse, just basic sympathy). I will never understand why Miguel thinks that because he lost people he loves, that other people should be okay with the same thing. He's like those old people that assume just because they went through traumatic events, that their children should go through them too just because they also went through it.

Honestly, with the way Miguel acts, it's difficult to remember he HAD people he loved that passed away due to the fact he just seems to want people to just 'accept' that it happens. No way, Jose. You would think the guy who lost his wife and CHILD would be thinking a lot more consciously about how he chooses to treat and address people, but he straight up doesn't.

I don't care what people say, Miguel es basura. Muy asqueroso.

I'm hearing a pro-abortion argument that fetuses 'don't count' as being alive because their lungs don't yet work outside the womb abd they're reliant on outside intervention. Apparently 'functional lungs' are part of yhe definition of a living being.

Ignoring yhe raw absurdity of that statement, I'm in renal failure. My kidneys mo longer function and I have to perform routine dialysis treatments. Withou this artificial intervention, I - and the other half a million Americans with renal failure - will die.

So do we mo longer count as alive? Is it of no moral consequence to kill us?

I'm still pretty young. I've seen people in their teens and twenties in the same position. We have our lives ahead of us. But we can't live without mechanical assistance.

So could someone decide, well, having to deal with your medical bullshit-- that's inconvenient, I don't want to deal with you anymore. Well, you're a permanent patient, you clearly have no quality of life, I'm just trying to prevent your suffering. Your vital organs don't work so you aren't really a living human being anyway.

What about those with pacemakers, or who need supplemental oxygen? They don't count because they can't survive independently?

I know it's just justification to kill a child without having to deal with the moral repercussions. They never think beyond justifying their actions. But what a sick idea.

I'm sorry for the situation you're in and I will be keeping you in my prayers.

Your message demonstrates yet another fatal flaw of the pro-abortion mindset. Any argument they made for killing children in the womb can be used to justify killing a person outside and even if they don't realize it and will deny it when it's pointed out, when they argue that an unborn baby isn't a person because their lungs aren't fully functional, they aren't conscious, etc. they are arguing those arbitrary points are what makes someone a person and if it justifies killing an unborn child then it in turn would also justify killing a person who has already been born.

But of course once you point that out they quickly make up a reason why it doesn't apply anymore once the person is born. But that in itself is just them debunking their own argument because if a fetus doesn't count as being alive because that same line of reasoning doesn't apply to someone who is outside the womb then lung, kidney, or other organ functionality is not the real argument and this new issue they brought up is.

They are hard to debate sometimes because every time you back them into corner they suddenly change their argument.

Pro-aborts do not think about the implications of their preposterous claims at all and they need to understand that when they create those arbitrary standards that they made up, they are revoking personhood from more than just the unborn and justifying murder of anyone who doesn't meet the perimeters they set - whether that person has already been born or not.

Look, I may not agree with all aspects of Catholicism, but the sexualization of nuns needs to stop.

You are actively sexualizing a group of women who dress the way they do BECAUSE they don't want to be sexualized. The sexy nun costumes are not only not cute, but deeply insulting.

Do y'all do this to women who wear hijabs?

You don't have to like the religion but that's no grounds to be straight up disrespectful.

"her body her choice" well these women are choosing their own way how to dress---stop mocking them.

If you're a Hisoka simp, watch this!

My Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.