@wayfarer's banner p

wayfarer


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 June 02 18:58:09 UTC

				

User ID: 3734

wayfarer


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 June 02 18:58:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3734

Do you not understand that this is just like fourth wall breaking and pointless?

My point is that at least this specific scenario (not all thought experiments) is pointless and setup not to gain any insight but to troll. And maybe to try whitewashing aberrant sexual practices.

I think that burden on arguing that murder is actually fine is on people claiming that vastly higher murder rate would be an improvement.

And that you would not like world where "significantly interrupting my life" would result in murder. I assure you that nonzero number of people think you are significantly interrupting their life.

Discounting them entirely makes no sense either.

This is the really intractable portion, because killing protestors is probably net pretty good when done by private individuals.

no, it is not

at best being a massive waste of time and resources. But usually also significantly interrupting business and people's lives.

I think that is not a good reason to murder people

Believing it 100% uncritically? No.

Taking them into account? Yes.

If politician campaigns on promise to introduce communism you should take into account their win is likely to result in them stealing things you own.

I'm in the same boat - ratfic in the sci-fi genre is where my interest lies

can you recommend some?

Iran is defending Europe

from what? "neocon wars have been a disaster" does not provide explanation for that, these wars could be terrible idea and it does not make Iran good.

I am confused why you think that for most of known human history woman were not working or that their work was limited to being pregnant.

but for most of known human history, men trade resources for sex and offspring.

This is a bit better, but still omits that across history women also provided resources. Even under maximally transactional view of situation that ignores basic biology. Pair bonding is a thing (large part of evopsych is nonsense, but benefits from having some emotions is quite obvious).

For start clothes used to ruinously expensive and women spend massive effort and time to produce it. Comparing costs across centuries is tricky at best. But as rough comparison clothes used to be about 100x to 1000x times more expensive* than nowadays. With women spending multiple hours each day to produce cloth needed to make them. This took effort comparable to grow enough food.

"men trade resources for sex and offspring" was a thing, but limited to some ruling castes. And for obvious reasons in many places it was considered as a degenerate aberration, even queens and empresses were doing things. Or at least pretending.

While for peasants across centuries not working was not an option at all. Yes, man was providing resources. The same for woman and children. And starving to death was still a real risk if anything at all went wrong. "men trade resources for sex and offspring" was not a viable option if woman not working results in everyone dying. Some people think that child labor in past existed because people were horrible abusers for reasons. No, very young children were working because alternative was entire family starving. The second alternative was industrialization, as it turns out.

*I expect that best way to compare is "how many hours a day you need to work to get enough clothes to not walk around naked", but even then you have problems. Even "how much time poor people need to work nowadays to earn enough for minimum necessary clothing" quickly runs into issues. But it is vastly lower than in ancient or medieval times.

You will never be taken seriously again, because to do so would be unfair to the literally countless other women who must compete

that is absurd, someone can rebuilt their life from worse things than that (not that it is easy)

But people (non-prostitute people) break all of these conditions all the time.

that does not make prostitution "normal, healthy, average relationship"

in the same way as someone being a thief does not mean that murder is normal, healthy and average

whether things you mention are bad or not is a separate topic

tend to have deeply conflicted world views that they never examine

well, examining your world view and deciding that you have room for "actually, I will go out in maybe pointless last stand if someone will leave me no other option that is acceptable" is also possible outcome.

And "would you prefer to rape children or murder grandmas" surely fits into category where this kind of response is OK.

And probably far earlier. (For example some chunk of millions murdered by Germans and Russians and Japanese regimes surely wished they did something a bit earlier, even if it would be doomed and only had a tiny effect)

I am fine not only with winning. I am also fine with "fuck you" type of hopeless stand.

Even if it only mildly inconveniences enemy.

Yes, I prefer cheating to win or seriously inconveniencing them, but at some point I prefer doomed last stand than playing. Not bothered to predefine what is the end stop for me but it is definitely far before engaging with "'An elderly woman will be tortured to death unless you have sex with a six year old. So, what are you going to do?" as invented by Aella.

Some were killed in their homes.

Or at least some rooms were hit by highly-targeted missile attacks.

Places with extremely poor visibility are valid reason for stop signs.

Farm labour could be in theory much more profitable but it is in general low-skill, replaceable workers, minimal starting costs to switch workers and so on. So it will go toward low-cost workers.

In theory it could pay two or three times more, but relevant food prices would increase (note: it would not affect all food, for example grain production in developed countries is highly mechanized, but strawberries picked manually one by one would noticeably increase in price).

But yes, it is not going to happen any time soon.

From wikipedia: Around half of all trips in the Netherlands are made by car, 25% by bicycle, 20% walking, and 5% by public transport

so for trips where cycling is actually a good idea (less than half of all) cycling is almost certainly more popular than cars

However being out on the road with all the multi-tonne death machines and fumes was not his idea of a good time

yes, cycling becomes better idea if there is infrastructure for it (the same as with driving, cycling, flying and public transport)

No first world citizen wants a job for 6 months and then ??? for the other 6.

IT freelancing may disagree, unstable short-term work is acceptable for some if it pays N times more.

N depends on situation, but for extreme cases can become hilariously large. I assure that many would be fine with 2 weeks of work and then ??? if you get yearly wages in that time of work.

financial/institutional merger involving two families

yes, and it is still quite distinct from "men trade resources and services for sex"

Are you claiming that in a normal, healthy, average relationship man does 100% of childrearing and woman is there to provide sex?

Or are you claiming that in a normal, healthy, average relationship there are no children?

In a normal, healthy, average relationship, men trade resources and services for sex.

where and when it is supposedly the situation?

AFAIK it was never ever in no location considered the way you claim

In a normal, healthy, average relationship, men trade resources and services for sex.

That is not healthy or average relationship and it is not normal.

Even in the most radically transactional view of relationship this claim is simply wrong.

For start, relations where woman contributes solely sex in exchange of stuff are in fact simply prostitution.

Even in the Netherlands, car travel is twice as popular as bicycle travel

for all travels or for travels where bicycles make sense?

cars are clearly better at long distance travel, this does not make them better at commuting 2 km

I am not asking people to walk 90 minutes to work. Simply use public transport or drive for long distances like almost everyone else.

at short distances cycling is typically faster, more pleasant, cheaper and healthier than public transport

Yes, the valid answer here is "Imprison or murder or otherwise incapacitate whoever setup this. Or at least attempt to do so".

Not going along their insanity. And note that promises that they will not do both anyway seem to be not trustworthy.

Well, it is fixable for some values of fixable: build enough parking and roads to allow this to happen. Effect is that your city is now 50% parking by area and 20% roads by area.

This may be overall desirable outcome for some and worth benefits of everyone getting by car everywhere.

get tired doing it

depending on context in modern world getting some exercise can* be benefit, not a problem

*obviously, not always

It seems that most of the people shaming her, from my read at least, clearly enjoy looking down and judging someone harshly, seeing themselves as better than her.

I see no problem with doing it with each of these groups (prostitutes, openly slutty people, celebrities, twitteroids, stark-raving-mad twitter haters). Though probably better to avoid doing anything more than minimal amount of it. And even that may be spend more productive on other things. But promoting or celebrating either is definitely terrible.

there's a way we can employ shame in a truly good way as a society?

Yes. You cannot legislate everything. If you need detailed law and call police because someone took all the cookies at family event then things went really wrong. The same for someone proud about being a prostitute and promoting it. Or spending time mostly on performative prostitute hating. Or doing business on either.

I also don't see cars on the sidewalk driving aggressively towards pedestrians outside of rare one off events.

Also for cyclists it is one off events, and cumulative danger is vastly greater with cars/trucks given that in collision they will squish pedestrian - while cyclists may cause deadly harm to pedestrians but it is absurdly rare

(for life-altering but not deadly harm - cars on sidewalks also cause greater danger than cyclists)