getting taken advantage of
I think a key detail here is that alcohol is a helluva drug. It's quite easy, especially as a smaller, younger woman to overestimate your tolerance. Either of you also might not know what's in the punch exactly, or how long you hit the keg.
So, the ethical thing is to look at the person as you're getting to bed and ask "ok, but really, is it OK to have sex here?" I think if she'd never in a million years have sex with you after a moderate amount of alcohol, no. If in the heat of the moment and a bit buzzed, she'd probably have said yes, you're at least in grey territory, potentially fine, depending on the details.
I have at no point intended my comments to be gendered, although I have almost certainly said man (by which I meant less drunk/larger) and woman (by which I meant more drunk/smaller). Heck, apply it to nonbinary dragonkin.
So, we may agree on ~everything.
Alright, I've tried to ignore you. I've blocked you, but still see the threads you generate, which was somehow even more annoying. At this point, I'm going to burn some social capital, or take the downvotes, or eat a ban, but by god I'm gonna say it - and I'll wager I'm not alone in the sentiment:
I dislike your weird, pathetic, whiney presence on this board, and I'd dearly love if you left.
Reading the details, this strikes me as reasonable on the part of the Biden admin.
Two major caveats on what you've written:
- The news in the press release is about an additional 7.7 gigadollars for 160 kilopeople. Your figures are for the total over his entire term.
- This is, like all previous loan forgiveness by Biden, not a giveaway so much as letting people qualify for forgiveness programs for which they fell through the cracks. E.g. from here
Automatically cancel debt for borrowers who would otherwise be eligible for loan forgiveness under income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, like the SAVE Plan, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness but are not enrolled in those programs.
It's also forgiving loans for people on permanent disability. That one's a little more questionable - I imagine some "permanent disabilities" are sketchy at best. But, still not "free money for all."
I think it's important to acknowledge that this is (afaik) very much not a giveaway to all or even most loan holders, including those doing well. I'm against executive orders/overreach, and I want to see the government stop giving out loans for underwater basket weaving as much as the next Mottizan, but this is just much less crazy than it seems at a glance.
Plus, of course, the guy in this situation has probably also been drinking.
The hypothetical as I am thinking about it is that the man is knowingly much less drunk. If everyone is very drunk, I think that's less of rape and more of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all around.
There's a word for a guy who consistently engages in that sort of reasoning (not just in this particular case, but in general) and that word is "virgin"
I think your point stands for a smallish group of those you're describing, "white knight" types, who should yes in fact move in the drunker/less-rigidly-consent-requiring direction.
But, in general, I prefer the word "adult." I found dating got exponentially easier as I started advertising being a ~sober, boring, responsible adult instead of being maximally able to consume booze/etc.
controversial
I don't think the moral importance of age of consent in general is controversial even on here. Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome any interesting discussion you'd like to have here.
But, I think the fact on the ground is that while posters would disagree on exact ages, allowances across cultures, etc, most people think there should be some age and/or age-gap that makes it definitionally impossible to consent.
Texas is currently being forced to accept more people showing up at their borders than are actually being born in the entire United States
While I agree with the spirit of your point, I don't think the above specifically is accurate. I see 3.7M births/year for the country, vs 1.8 M total population of illegal immigrants. The rate of "border encounters" appears to be 150-250k/month = 1.8-3M/year, but that's for the whole country.
And, while "border encounters" is technically in line with your phrase of "people showing up at their borders," the more reasonable comparison is to people actually net staying here. That must must be far lower, unless the illegal immigrant population was zero until about six months ago, which it wasn't, which makes the point feel weaker.
No, but I don't think the analogy tells us much. They are certainly both destruction of property, even if only one is arson-y; similarly in the rape side of the analogy both are rape, even if only one is violent-y.
(There's a weaker argument I could add that both forms of rape are violent, but that's sufficiently far into repurposing words that I won't stand by it real strongly.)
$1.8B/5200 teachers = 350k/ea on average. $1.8B/8M people in NYC = $250/ea. Not nothing, but not that much really. Certainly less than the amount from one year's income tax that goes to education.
99% IQ? I know we are supposed to be kind in this particular thread. But...are you sure you're in the top 1%?
Yes. I'd guess 140-145 IQ, based on various standardized tests/competitions/comparison to peers. I'd wager she's smarter. (Insert some standard disclaimers about IQ being stupid, especially out at the tails; I mean all of the above more about intelligence than IQ, let alone IQ as measured by any particular test.)
What is going on with this filter setting?
It's possible that it's a pure coincidence that the strongest connections I've felt to people, platonic or romantic, male or female, have all been to people this bright. But, I doubt it, and the causality isn't difficult to imagine. Shared life experiences and interests, and a sense that they can see more of me than "that smart guy." Somehow this all matters even when we're not talking about anything that requires being smart
That being said, on an unrelated note, I did appreciate your arguments against sexual intercourse with black out drunk women and I agree that is a bad thing. Unlike a lot of people in that thread.
Thank you, shit, that was not the proudest of themotte I've ever been. OTOH, it's nice to know I don't quite fit every stereotype here, and to have something to point to as foil to when I explain to someone "look I'm really not that conservative, it just sounds that way sometimes".
I'd rather not even talk to the cashier. I definitely don't want to fuck the hypothetical harem (given the alternative option of a ~zero-effort monogamous casual arrangement, or, even better, a high-effort monogamous serious one).
freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way
But "fuck" is a whole lot of interacting with a stranger. (don't) Fuck that.
Consider places ~an hour from LA or San Diego. This takes you down a notch on cost of living, at the primary cost of being farther from exciting things to do, which some of your suggestions about more remote places tell me you might not super prioritize. Still not cheap, but home ownership is plausible at 250k/yr if you prioritize it. At the same time, you're close enough that if you build a life but decide you need to be more central (e.g. for special schools), it's not the end of the world to commute or make a small move.
Beautiful, great weather, lots of hiking, active rat community, plenty of smart young people (albeit not SF/NY/Boston levels).
E.g. Fallbrook/Julian/Camarillo.
Feel free to PM if you want more details on my similar search a couple years back.
I think the disconnect is somewhere in which sets are equal vs subsets of "consented" "said yes but was much drunker" "was much drunker but I didn't realize", but have lost the thread of exactly what.
So does this just end up in the supreme court, then get reversed? I think we should just make it ~impossible to prosecute presidents, past or present, and skip all the theatre.
it wasn't just legal trouble it was to protect his image which had been tarnished
Legal trouble is way more important than your image! I'd rather lose my job than end up in jail because I said the wrong thing on youtube.
I mean I can imagine the framework, insomuchas axioms are axioms, but are you saying you think the 30/9 case is, or can reasonably be argued to be, closer to fraud than rape? If so, I disagree, but it's just marginally within the realm of things I could imagine reasonable people thinking.
That all seems reasonable. What is the current status of French law?
Fuck mice, install Vimmium. It lets you do ~anything in a browser without a mouse.
What would you think of posting these in their own mega submission, instead of the CWR? Or separate individual submissions even.
Uh, do you know what a concubine was?
Well, now I do. I suppose if I'd thought about it harder, I could have defined harem/concubine/brothel correctly, but mea culpa.
I still don't want one.
Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time
Well said, and a decent metaphor for fighting reality on a number of fronts I suspect.
especially with the ADL coming out to defend him.
Can you point me to what they actually said? I can find lots of secondary sources claiming they did, but none containing a quote, and nothing on adl.org.
It seems plausible to me. Maybe something like "calling people who aren't killing Jews Nazis is like, kind of in poor taste, please stop."
In debates over whether it's ok to use AI for X, it's helpful to ask "instead of asking an AI to do it, what if I asked another human to do it? Would that be ok?"
I like the metaphor, but I think it misses the key detail that AI effort has a trivial effort floor. Your "copying from substack" metaphor is spot on though.
the onus is on the user to put their own time and effort into vetting and fact checking it
i am concerned that in practice it's going to fall heavily onto other users and the mods, rather than OP.
i think we can have ~all the ai you actually want with a policy of "no ai, except for short things where you used it so well/minimally that we can't tell and it's more like a spell checker than outsourcing"
Not sure if you meant ((EA or rat adjacent) and (trading or crypto)), in which case no; or (EA or rat adjacent or crypto or trading) in which case yes. Even if the former, there's occasional discussion of investing, but we're pretty heavily on the "all hail the efficient market hypothesis" side, so not fond of crypto.
Anyway, local discord server, DM if you'd like.
- Prev
- Next
The key difference is that only in the rape story has anything been done to her by someone else.
When driving, the damage is to the pole. Heck, let's say she ("S") kills someone else ("E"). S has violated E's rights, so S should be prosecuted for murder (or property damage to the pole). No one did anything to S, except insomuch as S did it to herself, so no one should be prosecuted (or held morally responsible) for anything that happened to S.
When S is raped, the damage is entirely to S. This was done to her by someone ("R"[apist]), who should be prosecuted. Debateably, S did something to herself too, but undebateably (well, it is themotte, but I feel pretty good about this one), there is the key difference that something was done to S in this one.
Further, in my version of the setup, she really hasn't decided to sleep with the nerd ("can't count to ten"). Past some level of drunk, you're on autopilot, and anyone who steers you transgresses. So yes, I absolutely do deny people agency once they are blackout drunk. I put that agency in the hands of society/morality to protect them. Enormously practical? No, so go be monogamous and sober, but still better than a free-for-all on drunk coeds.
More options
Context Copy link