domain:inv.nadeko.net
faceh
2m ago
I can't avoid places "people who didn't take or can't pass the sex test" hang out
I mean, yes you can.
This allows any venue to directly filter out people that haven't passed the maturity test.
Go places that bounce anyone that isn't 'sexually mature' from entry.
I'd HAVE to actually check.
I'm unclear why this seems like an ardurous burden to you.
faceh
3m ago
Turns, stares directly into the camera.
I mean IF THE SHOE FITS.
If we're building our notion of consent from a starting point that assumes/accepts that men and women are generally different, this would probably inform many other ways in which we arrange society.
And the thing about children, at least the law attempts to protect them from exploitation.
Consider, math is the one subject that women haven't caught up with men in despite best efforts over DECADES
Consider Women hold the majority of student loan debt.
And they pay if off slower than men in general.
If it turns out that a lot of women didn't understand compound interest and the actual implications of accepting loans when they signed up, I would 100% be in favor of releasing them from their loans and making the lenders eat it, b/c there was no true 'meeting of the minds' at the time the loans were incurred.
Under my proposed regime, banks could be forced to write off debts made to any persons who didn't pass the 'maturity test' that showed they actually understand how money and interest actually works, if said person defaults on their loan. No actual consent = no enforceable contract. So banks would prefer to lend to 'mature' individuals.
"But that means women aren't able to attend university as easily!"
Maybe a good thing. But the obvious solution is that they can get someone who does pass the maturity test, maybe their parents... maybe their husband to Co-sign a loan. If they think its a good idea.
Isn't that BETTER than saddling them with a debt they'll quite possibly be stuck with forever? Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves to the one where they have to either actually learn and understand math OR get someone else's help before they can get loaned money?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
4m ago
Fine, include a version of The Marshmallow Test if you want!
The Marshmallow Test is billed as a test of delayed gratification, but I suspect it is more a test of whether the subject trusts authority.
phailyoor
8m ago
Nobody told me that a quite large percentage of positive pregnancy tests meet a swift end in a matter of days. I think this should be a more widely spread fact.
Secondly, immediate pain is not a well-optimized maturity test for a first-world country regardless. What brings prosperity in first-world countries is long-term thinking and the ability to lock in over months and years. Not enduring physical pain for half an hour.
Fine, include a version of The Marshmallow Test if you want!
There's a plethora of ways to measure a person's understanding of the world and their ability to endure discomfort for future gain.
Under the current regime, the ghetto thug AND the glass-jaw nerd are granted "adulthood" status with all rights that entails by the mere fact of turning eighteen. Do we think this is optimal?
People generally accept that taking a driver's test and passing some arbtitrary standard is enough to get the stamp of approval to operate a 5000 lb vehicle on public streets. I'm mostly suggesting just an expansion of the existing system there.
Under my ideal system, too, anyone is free to transact with a non-adult, but they bear ANY losses that may result if the other non-adult party reneges.
If, for instance, you give $100k in student loans to an 18 y/o who hasn't passed the maturity tests, and they default on them years later, they can't be forced to repay because from a contractual standpoint, they lacked the ability to consent. So they can have the debt dismissed if the lender is stupid enough to give them money.
SSCReader
23m ago
Yup, note my classes are what close to 60% women? And in a Blue Tribe area.
SSCReader
25m ago
You know I think it potentially could be a factor yes. Though you might just get Blue Tribers moving out to rural areas to take advantage of cheaper land.
Though rural infrastructure would need improvement too, most likely. Could be part of shifting value to rural areas in and of itself.
Magusoflight
27m ago
The kids are “woker”, and yet….
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
40m ago
Do you think the shift to remote work will allow value to accrue more in rural areas, and outside of cities? I know some Christian writers like Rod Dreher and Stephen Morello have mentioned this as a possibility, remote work opening up more rural collectivist efforts amongst red tribers.
Turniper
41m ago
At my alma mater they took mathematician calculus, which was regarded as being on the same level of difficulty as the engineering calculus track, so I'd assume so.
Turniper
44m ago
Dude, you contribute enough that I remember your name. That puts you in a pretty select group, I barely remember 10 posters from here and I went to HS with one of them and regularly text another. I really enjoy your travelogues and I'm happy you're part of this place.
clo
44m ago
From what I've observed, revealed preference seems to be "make money in America, then retire somewhere much, much cheaper."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
47m ago
Not sure this is going to influence anyone - people who already believed Trump is a philandering stupid bald nazi clown etc.. he's already maximally bad in their eyes. Everyone else has tuned out their yammering and they no longer have much of a megaphone to command with the decline in TV viewership.
IME it is influencing some people — primarily elderly Boomers who still watch TV (particularly Fox News). That, and some of the "global satanic-Jewish-pedo conspiracy" Q-anon types a la Vox Day.
AvocadoPanic
1hr ago
I had a black bear in my driveway Monday evening. Just outside 495 in Massachusetts.
TIRM
1hr ago
Now that's interesting. I would have assumed married couples would get a free pass for possible past fornication. Sometimes the first baby comes a bit quicker than normal for some young married couples.
FtSoA
1hr ago
It's conceivable in principle those who found him lied about intentional or incompetent acts.
I have no idea about this particular case. Nothing has been revealed, officially. It's a best practice to always keep the business end of a gun pointed in the safest direction possible. (It strikes me as strange he would take his gun+holster off and set in on a table pointing right back at him.) Things can get caught in holsters. Glock Leg has been a thing for quite some time now. Base rates being what they are, my bet is on some form of user error over mechanical failure.
Oh, absolutely. There was a phenomenon in the late '80s and into the '90s known as a Glock leg or a Glock thigh or a Glock knee. What that referred to was the tendency of some police officers who would grab the gun from their holster and immediately put their finger on the trigger. They were used to the much heavier trigger pull of a revolver, and just by depressing the - putting a little bit of pressure on the Glock's trigger, they'd shoot themselves in the leg.
AvocadoPanic
1hr ago
I've been meeting with our pastor weekly for several weeks now.
Today during the crisis intervention counseling she agreed to both individual therapy / psychiatric care beginning tomorrow, and couples / marital counseling at a TBD date.
I spoke to an attorney last week. It was sad and depressing. I completed the documention exercises he recommended before I blocked the the extremist content from the network. This is a non-perfered option.
Being a suspicious sysdmin I was already viewing flows in real time with ntop. I'm blocking tor, outbound VPN from the VLAN her devices are on and also run several domain block lists in DNS. I also trap and force all DNS though my DNS servers and use a block list to block all the well know DNS over https servers. Opnsense firewall.
After I confronted her with the emails and transactions she agreed to go to a crisis counseling service. She now agreed to engage with a therapist / psychiatrist. She goes back tomorrow. She says she knew it was a scam but sent the money anyway because they were nice to her. I don't understand.
White well-being / nowhiteguilt.org is the bailey I'm sure you can imagine the motte.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1hr ago
I'm an early adopter for man-made horrors that are, unfortunately, entirely within my comprehension.
AvocadoPanic
2hr ago
US.
After confronting her with the email and the screenshots of the transactions she agreed to go to a crisis counseling walk in service. They saw us right away, she was much more amenable to seeing a therapist / psychiatrist after talking through things with the crisis counselor. She goes back tomorrow.
I'd reached out to her brother several weeks ago. Unfortunately they were estranged when we ment and married. Didn't really reconcile until ~14 years ago, and we've only seen him in person once in the last 12 years.
I was really very surprised how supportive and engaged the local police department was when I reached out about options, thankfully I did not need to go down that path. Small town life.
She now says she knew it was a scam and sent the money anyway because they were nice to her and it was part fantasy. Though the money and bitcoin was very real and not fantasy.
I've a friend who's a psychiatrist in the UK. He and my wife did A&E rotations together in Ireland. He and I are talking tomorrow.
I really appreciate your advice, thank you.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
2hr ago
Everyone here needs to chill.
You read his statement as indicating that the crowd was trying to assault them, which is just wrong, so I provided another source clarifying that the civilians never posed a risk.
Yeah, sure, in the story he tells the crowd wasn't trying to assault him. Did I ever once claim that wasn't a war crime? I'm pretty sure I agreed it was.
If they deliberately shoot civilians who aren't fighting, yeah, that's a war crime. And he's alleging that has happened, fair. But the nature of the rifles is orthogonal to its status as a war crime.
But this is the quote we're talking about:
The equipment, the equipment that we were issued, fully automatic weapons, which, in and of itself, is not a violation of protocol. However, we were issued M855 green-tipped ammunition. That’s important, because green-tipped ammunition is a steel-jacketed copper round that’s designed to — specifically designed to penetrate armor. It’s designed to kill. It’s designed to shoot through reinforced objects, to kill someone on the other side of it. That’s what all the UG Solutions contractors are equipped with right now in country. Everyone carries a standard basic load of 210 rounds of M855 armor-piercing military combat ammunition. Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.
Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.
... even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population?
You quoted that yourself. You didn't bold it -- you bolded 'against an unarmed population,' which isn't relevant to the statute. (Being unarmed is not sufficient to claim protection under 8(2)(b)(i), as I explained. Maybe you disagree, but you haven't said so yet.) Was I to assume that meant you disagreed? Presumably not, given you also said, 'Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony.' But no, it's not an error, it's just that, taken holistically, his words mean something other than what he said. Fine. The tone of my last message would have been very different if you'd just pointed that out instead of saying:
This, as with any law, will be pursued with litigation and deliberation to work out details. The entire application of law is not based on a single sentence with no rational determination applying to it.
With no effort to clarify that I'd completely misinterpreted what you were calling a crime. I misread things sometimes, I won't lie. But it really doesn't feel like I'm the one who isn't trying to achieve mutual understanding.
But forget what he said. Here's what you said -- not off-the-cuff, not in a video:
We can surmise that this is what he means by war crimes, that using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control is a war crime. This is a war crime under The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 (Article 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i)).
The statute does not say that. It forbids directing any attack whatsoever 'against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.' The fact that attack is performed with a rifle with live bullets is entirely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring your point that the IDF uses rubber bullets in the West Bank, it just has nothing to do with the statute as best as I can tell. And what does 'deal[ing] with civilian crowd control' actually mean? Cause if you don't actually shoot any civilians who aren't taking a direct part in hostilities (or act in one of the other manners I described in my previous comment), it's simply not a war crime. Are you under the impression that civilian crowd control is impossible without attacking civilians who take no hostile action? If so, you believe that civilian crowd control is a war crime per se, since, again, the weapon used in the attack makes no difference. If not, then it's entirely possible to deal with civilian crowd control while armed with a rifle with live bullets and not commit a war crime.
Or am I taking you out of context too? I mean, it's a complete thought. In text. Is the fact you described an example of something else entirely ('starving children getting a little too close or not disseminating as quickly as the group wants, and then being shot with live ammo') afterward meant to clarify that you didn't mean what you said?
It's not like it's not important. Whether Israel is in fact having its forces 'us[e] a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control' is trivial to establish; the details of any particular incident are much, much harder. And there's number of violations, and the fact that it is (allegedly) policy; policy in violation of international law is much more damning than bad behavior from individual soldiers.
If I didn't bother to check the cite and replied, 'Oh, wow, and Aguilar says every contractor is using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control! That must be hundreds or maybe thousands of violations of international law right there!' would you have corrected me and clarified the war crime is actually just using those rifles to shoot non-violent civilians? Would you have said, 'Aguilar's remarks were off-the-cuff, you can't take his words at face value?' Or are you just retreating to the motte after I've challenged the bailey?
It does not matter that Israel has not signed on to the first Additional Protocol, because it’s now customary international law, making it binding to Israel (and to everyone).
It's interesting that you accuse me of hostile misreading. Here are the three things I said on this subject:
Israel hasn't signed this statute, but I'll concede the point if the behavior is a war crime by any international standard with substantial support.
and
Especially since this is the infamous ICC which the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to.
and
But instead of committing to one or offering your own interpretation, you just pushed it aside and baldly asserted that this behavior will be found to violate the statute once it gets to trial (which you know will never happen).
And your response:
Now, again, it doesn’t matter that Israel isn’t a signatory whatsoever, and even their opinion on what constitutes international custom isn’t determinative of anything
I'm pretty sure Israel's opinion on this question matters a great deal for whether the trial is ever going to happen. Or is there a date set for Netanyahu's ICC trial? It's gotta be pretty soon, they put out the warrant for his arrest ages ago. I never said that Israel wasn't subject to the ICC's jurisdiction -- a topic on which I have no strong opinion and am not particularly interested in arguing about, because it doesn't matter when I already said I'd concede if the behavior is a war crime by the Rome Statute regardless. I certainly didn't indicate I thought the ICC (and the ICJ, and the Red Cross, and whoever else) accepted Israel isn't subject to it. It's impossible not to hear them shouting that it is.
I said:
-
That Israel hasn't signed it (True)
-
That the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to it (Only 98% True! Israel contests that some or all of the First and Second Additional Protocols do not reflect customary law (they name specific articles, but say explicitly the list is non-exhaustive), which does not conclusively rule out the possibility that they accept at least one provision somewhere in the document is customary! They've never surrendered any of their citizens for trial by the ICC, though, and there's no indication that's going to change. Mea culpa.)
-
the trial is never going to happen (True). Well, no, to be fair I said you know the trial will never happen. If you don't know that, I apologize.
So I’m providing you another example, if you’re for some reason intent on disagreeing with Aguilar because he didn’t talk about munitions neurotically enough or something, or if you think he meant the starving children were threatening his life.
I'm intent on saying true things on super important topics and not saying false things, even if those false things holistically contribute to a true impression. I'm not perfect on that score, I know... for which I've apologized and retracted my erroneous claims.
Student loans in the US are generally simple interest, as long as they are paid on time.
More options
Context Copy link