@AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic's banner p

AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic

Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 23 20:41:30 UTC

Never on reddit. Never on Twitter.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1919

AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic

Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 23 20:41:30 UTC

					

Never on reddit. Never on Twitter.


					

User ID: 1919

Verified Email

Given that the baptism of your children requires that you ask the Church to accept them as a member and publicly state that you intend to raise them in the Catholic faith, I think your in-laws can be forgiven for bringing this up. Since at least one point you least mimed agreement. I have friends in similar circumstances and I'm also unsympathetic. If you don't want to raise your children religious why get them baptized, if you had been clear with your intentions from the start I don't think you would have this conflict (might have other conflict but not this one!).

Keeping your facts the same, your arguments are an apology for child sexual abuse.

Children cannot give consent.

In the myriad of child sexual abuse cases that have been reported in the news, statuary rape is certainly among them.

Are you of the opinion that the morality of statutory rape is contingent on monetary compensation to the victims?

Can you explain more on the geopolitical reordering and third World Wars fears? I agree the current events strain belief in a continuing Pax Americana. But I really don't know what happens next.

I see the Ukrainian conflict as similar to the Spanish civil war, with other powers arming and watching to see how the technology and weapons work in actual warfare, and taking notes for the future. It feels a like such a bigger event than anything else scale-wise; and now Hamas attacking Israel has the potential to further draw international divisions.

My thinking was both legal and factual, if I understand you correctly. I do not think a 14 year-old is mature enough and understands the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with an adult, simply because of their inexperience. Even if the adult they is a billionaire in exchange for payment. This is not to say younger person could not agree to partake in the activity, but the difference in age and social stature on the part of the child renders any of their agreement to be coerced and manipulated.

Instead of bringing up Taylor Swift you should have brought up R. Kelly he demonstrates your point better.

He dabbled in homosexuality? Is that in the link?

Edit: Checking I found these two references-

"Yet when it came out six years ago, Rising Star was mostly ignored; as a result, its most scandalous and perhaps revelatory passages, such as Obama’s long letter to another girlfriend about his fantasies of having sex with men, read today, to people who are more familiar with the Obama myth than the historical record, like partisan bigotry."

"With Alex [McNear, Obama’s girlfriend at Occidental College], I think she wanted to have her role known. So when Alex showed me the letters from Barack, she redacted one paragraph in one of them and just said, “It’s about homosexuality.”"

I would like a clarification on how resources utilized on lawns could be repurposed toward something you think is useful.

I don't see how the 'quality' of person involved is a rebuttal to my argument. I said it was based on age. The difference in age for any adult and a fourteen year-old nullifies any idea of consent on the side of the child. Children who don't have jobs, can't drive and are subject to curfew are open to sexual coercion from any adult.

I never said there would less conflict, only different conflict. If you don't want to raise your children religious then why get them baptized? I understand changing ones mind but still I think as a parent in a free-confessional state you have the absolute free choice. Your decision will have consequences and this may lead to conflict, but I think taking a firm stance at initiation would certainly have made their stance public and the future conflict would not have occurred. To stand up in public and pantomime these words, while you might have them not hold weight, I don't think its fair to discredit those who took your pantomime at face value.

Can you expand upon what expectation of the future changes is exactly fueling your crisis? To my thinking when the AI of driverless cars can't make left turns and while AI can create text and art it is just pattern regurgitation, this isn't despair-inducing to me, but I also haven't been paying close attention.

Is the 'fight' Nate Soares is talking about just on regulation? Since while I agree up until now that's been absence, I see AI regulation as something government could eventually codify. I think Silicon Valley giants are firmly in the Military Industrial complex and the recipients of government research dollars.

I do not see the correlation between attending concerts and sexual activity with the performer. While underage fans might desire such a sexual relationship, for the reasons I spelled out before if the adult allows or facilitates such activity it's sexual coercion and manipulation by the mere fact that one party is an adult and the other is a fourteen year old.

So standing here in 2023, how is Cook county Illinois going to utilize these resources. Do you want suburban housing demolished and larger capacity units built instead? For the effort component while 'centralization' of lawn service toward a community green space could free up resources such as man-hours I don't see how an extra hour of free time per week per household would change anything in the grand calculus of life.

The invalidating feature to me is her age. The status of being adult is what is causing these relationships to be coercive and manipulative. Taylor Swift with other adults (regardless of status of either adult) is not considered since age difference is not a factor.

With rate increases will FIRE people get burned? -On a more serious note, I think the current inflation is doing serious harm to income inequality. Either through education or skills you are either in a dynamic industry where you get rewarded with pay increases so you maintain or increase your purchasing power or you're in a stagnating uncompetitive industry where your real income is eroded by inflation. This advantages only increases as you go through life, buying a house instead of renting and adequately saving for retirement vs renting and not being able to save.

For pregnancy prescreening the effectiveness of the tests have been called into question. Embryos are different but might suffer from the same issues?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy-birth-genetic-testing.html

I've often thought about the dissolution of the monasteries and what a modern equivalent would be. The closest I've come up is a state seizure of college endowments or some sort of modern land reform (apartments converted to condos and renters given ownership and as well as the elimination of second home ownership).

I also think the lenses of the historical event should be weighed against how Henry VIII squandered the country and his personal financial position he inherited from his father and grandmother (both extraordinarily wealthy) on foreign wars court expenses.

Or the Lancet study for hydroxychloroquinen that had more covid subjects reported than covid cases for some countries. Who fakes a clinical trial to show something is ineffective if they don't have reliable cure waiting in the wings?

Its meaning is 'both' not 'or' social stature here is conferred by adultstatus.

So you are of the sincere belief that parents pimping out their children is only a negative when the money isn't managed correctly?

Aren't there already gene therapies being developed? Isn't it instead that testing on human subjects is subject to agreed upon international standards? I think you can do this research but you are subject to Institutional Review Boards or your country equivalent. I don't see any involvement of neo-luddites in preventing this research, unless you consider human rights to be a stumbling block.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki

Can you explain more of what you mean in this section? [We always fight against its cold cruelty and every victory of ours leaves us weaker and worse off. Few seem to understand this at the meta level, so in modernity we go from blunder to blunder and become ever more cringe with each generation.]

Are you talking about a 'fight' against evolution? Can you explain what you mean by 'cringe'? I understand this word to mean social awkwardness but it is always viewed relatively.

I don't have anything to add, but love the post and the math. Makes me think of a Fermi paradox equation for incels!

When I was younger I had a low opinion of my appearance. But then as I got older and looked back at my younger photos I realized I actually looked good (not great but much better than I had thought). The thinking then became if my earlier opinion was wrong then my current self- opinion of my appearance could also be wrong. People much uglier and less fit than me had much higher self-esteem; and I truly think anyone working toward self-improvement is eminently positive.

Right now is the youngest you'll ever be from this point forward. As I've gotten older and advanced more in my career I've cared less what other people think and gained much more self-confidence, part of that is having the self-confidence to go out to events alone (art galleries, concerts etc.), and recognizing that I want to be around people even though I don't want to necessarily befriend them.

I sometimes also view other with their own families or in relationships and can feel quite low when I feel that avenue is inaccessible to me; what has helped me is to 'accept the things I cannot change' and also to support those friends and family who have their own families.

Ineffective was not the right word, but it seems that some of the tests give a lot of false positives. If using it to screen embryos you'd delete a lot of healthy ones. If you have a limited number of embryos or a high rate of failure of embryo to pregnancy it might not be wise to use this as screening criteria.

But high density housing already exists in Cook county, residents have the choices to move there if they would like. Destroying existing housing is not efficient. Wouldn't it make more sense to amend zoning laws and allow developers to build high density housing where demand allows? You're willingness to destroy these communities and your vitriolic descriptions of these folk (with spurious associations) make me suspect your aim is instead punitive. Since you have the option of living in the city, what does the existence of suburbs and your cliched description of it affect you when you may simply avoid it? I'll add a counter argument by saying that to my understanding the problems of the Windy City are not the result of its small size and a tremendous latent demand for high density housing; so while adopting your schema may create some efficiencies in city administration, other underlying problems affecting the Chicago would still exist.