MetGreDKo
Discord ID: 184197075796361225
77 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/1
!agree
!gamer
That article was baffling in more than one respect.
The part which really stood out beyond the obvious is how despite being of age she seems to completely and utterly blame him for her actions and willful participation.
Depends on what you have to indicate it <:doge:272653287965065217>
The tests are shit. Poorly worded and answers don't account for why you feel a particular way.
Also being against it doesn't mean you'd legislate against it or dictate it to others
I'd be less concerned with food and energy, more concerned with the raw materials, such as rare earth minerals, that go into everything modern society uses. We have a lot for current uses but as society develops and the rest of the world catches up, we'll see just how long they hold out before we have to expand beyond Earth.
@Eric Black eh, I'm not actually concerned about it though. I'll long be dead before it becomes an issue and recycling will delay it. Then there's the potential for converting some types of materials into uses for others.
I highly doubt 10 years out. People have constantly said the same about oil yet continued exploration finds new pockets of what ever resource is being sought after.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful. It does mean I don't necessarily buy into the doom and gloom of worst case scenario.
Not sure what fusion and electric cars have to do with my statement. Oil was an example of how our estimates can continue to be wrong. - a response to your 10 year comment on how long rare earth minerals may last.
Pretty sure who ever told her it was harassment to state such has their head up their ass, assuming it were true.
Doesn't make the interpretation correct. It's speculation that one was present. It's also not known what the role of a lawyer would be in such a case - seemingly HR - to protect the interests of the college so said lawyer may not deem it worthwhile to correct.
I'm fairly certain the 95% chance to win was due to the assumption she would keep states she was leading by a narrow margin and win states from trump, at least according to the few news I saw try and project it.
Likely it's to be persons vs. States who enact laws restricting it
@Joe_Limon The courts can also rule in the opposite direction that there's a right to life, at least in so far as they can't intentionally terminate it.
It's true they can reverse it, just look back at separate but equal which was later reversed as not being true. To bring it before the courts however for such a judgment you need to argue either that the supreme court hadn't considered a particular argument or couldn't conceive of it being used in "x" way.
Whether there is an uptick in false accusations remains to be seen and is a matter of contention. If we're discussing raw numbers then if there is an increase of accusations as a whole then the truthful as well as false will both rise. If we're discussing as a ratio to accusations well... that's up for debate.
For the actions taken? Not in the least. I feel it sends the implied message that the influenced isn't entirely responsible for their own actions, that others are in part to blame. In truth that individual made a conscious decision to do what ever act they committed. They alone are to blame for performing it.
Holding others accountable also runs the risk of punishing those for things being taken out of context and acted upon. Some might take jokes seriously or hyperbolic comments when the person making them had no real intent to endorse said things.
@Deleted User It's not your fault if they did even if it were cyber bullying. At the end of the day we decide what actions we take. The only real exceptions are when our intelligence is so low that we are not legally able to take care of ourselves. In those cases I can see holding someone responsible as it would be manipulating someone who couldn't know better. For the vast majority of the population however they have the capacity to think about their actions and how they might impact others or even just themselves then carefully consider whether or not they should go through with it.
Frankly, to me, it's not much different from the age old "well if your friends did this..." where someone attempts to justify their actions by pointing to others. What others say or do is moot and doesn't justify our own actions and they should not feel any sense of responsibility lifted because of that.
It's technically true that laws to protect a free a society might paradoxically limit some individual freedoms. That however isn't fascist. It's when the laws aren't aimed to protect a free society but are more restrict where you go the fascist route.
Of course there will be more degenerate behavior and attitudes with a lack of religious upbringing. The two have been intrinsically tied due to the heavy influence of religions for literal millenia. It's only a relatively recent phenomena where its influence has declined somewhat.
@MaxKolbe Whether atheism is dying or not - which I've seen no evidence for - is moot. That wasn't the point of what I was saying. Rather that when religious attitudes have virtually defined what is and is not degenerate, of course a lack of religion - which doesn't just include atheism - will mean more degeneracy. That however would only be until the prevailing social perspectives shift enough where those non-religious attitudes become the norm.
@MaxKolbe You're conflating two things now. One can be atheist and not be a part of a movement. Being atheist just means holding a belief god or what ever you wish to call it does not exist or merely not believing one does exist (definitions tend to vary in different circles. The precise definition doesnt matter here). Being a part of an atheistic movement means holding that belief and striving towards something with others in a collective effort.
@MaxKolbe I'm having trouble typing a response because you are conflating atheism with an atheistic movement saying the former is dying because one if the latters supposedly is. Upon bringing the conflating of things to your sttention you now ignore it and and purpose of my statement you now go off and ramble about something off-topic. I'm not even sure why you're @ ing me at this point.
@MaxKolbe Reading back I have a better idea what you're trying to say. That religious influence is on the rise as the atheist movement supposedly is in decline. Except non-religious is a growing subset of the population and last I recall the church had to file for bankruptcy or was on the verge of it due to declining attendance. In either case as non-religious is rising and the religious are not (last I read anyway), there's no reason to believe the trend away from religious influence will be reversed. It might be halted through stagnation but even the religious subset of the population perceive and interact with things differently than even 30 years ago.
@Beemann I would agree with that assertion. It's just the best I could phrase it here. Discord has a character limit and I'm typing on my phone, not to mention I haven't seriously looked into stuff in a long time so am out of touch in many ways simply due to apathy. It was only gamergate which roused my attention again.
@Beemann If ripping structured apart without replacing what needed to replace is the issue then I'd put the blame on the pace of our advancement over the past 200 years. Previously advancement was slow which meant it would take a while before having a truly noticeable impact on the average person's day to day or institutions in general. Society had time to adapt to those changes because of it, making small tweaks here and there. As advancement occurred more rapidly however that meant institutions were more quickly put in a place where they could be questioned and may even be obsolete. There wasn't an adequate amount of time though to really see how those advancements would impact a society so you couldn't really build appropriate replacements for what needed to say. That isn't to mention an underlying question of how you can tailor or manipulate a society into adopting other structures if say, the traditional family, was removed. It isn't something easily done particularly in an information age where literacy and education are universal.
@Grenade123 Indeed, I just wanted to play good games with reliable sources for information - though I never found any games journalism to be such.
@Beemann Irony is the family and community responsibility you mention may be making a return in one respect. With the loss of wages relative to inflation you have a greater dependence on family and community for personal sustainability where as during a time where wages were higher you could more practically turn your back on others.
I think part of the issue there though is that societal views on family have changed and not in a way many recognize. A lot of people mention money when it comes to having kids and while it's true that they are expensive it's been shown that financial incentives don't actually lead to higher birth rates. Parenting now is tremendously different from decades or centuries ago in time committment though. I feel parents now are essentially expected to spend far more time with their kids than they used to. This time can be beneficial to kids but also problematic where they don't fully develop the ability to operate independently and become sheltered. That isn't all though but society used to have an attitude of parents first and now it's kids first. Just makes it seem more taxing than rewarding.
Yeah, taking kids places certainly is an issue. It's interesting how my mother wouldn't let me leave the block when I was high school yet she would talk about her brothers bicycling to a store literally miles away. She sort of set herself up when I was younger to be dependant on her and my father.
So far as downtime; phone use isn't an issue but the length and quality of the downtime relative to the stress of uptime is. For some phones might be adequate but others may need more time for them to find the quality required.
@Kyubae It's entirely possible new studies came out from when I read on it but as of about 10 years ago, that's what I was seeing in them, that financial incentives didn't have a real impact. It's also entirely possible societal views and requirements to have kids has changed since then. As I said before, I sort of left everything some time ago.
@Grenade123 I agree, legal consequences have changed and I'm not convinced all for the better.
@Grenade123 So far as a parent home 24/7. There certainly is truth that for a time it did but it's also true that the parent at home had other duties to attend to and may have extended independence to their children far beyond what we see today.
Well how far back are we going? At one point women were foraging for food, making clothing and other things. Working fields and animals as well in farm life. I'm not sure how long the whole sit at home thing truly lasted for one spouse.
Birthrate among different demographics is even more interesting
@Grenade123 It isn't just a matter of raw time but ratio if their personal time. My sister and her husband both work. They have one kid. Every other weekend they leave the kid with someone for alone time and are looked at as monsters for not wanting to spend time with the kid.
I mean, she was breathing. All that was required <:doge:272653287965065217>
Beware. You will meet those types. They will try to trap you.
It's like scientist man said, people need a cause or something
That would interfere with white man's burden mk. II
We're not going to have a civil war nor should we. The only one we had was due to deep seeded, long standing issues from at least the founding of the nation. Only approximately 90 years later at great fear of one side winning out permanently did any such thing happen. Presently we have a much more stable form of government with disagreement on what's more along the lines of details than the big picture.
Basically a title 9 thing, changing gender back to its synonym of sex. Meanwhile everyone flips out that trannies won't have rights.
Women stating "pay me or I'll say you raped me" are practicing extortion - a crime in many places. Men would do well to get it recorded or documented and go to the police immediately to file a report.
So far as the numbers of founded vs. unfounded reports, that we will never know. Unfounded reports include intentionally filed false reports as well as ones which turned out not to have occurred but the victim may have had reason to believe it did. Examples of this is if you are drunk, have sex and black out recalling nothing. You can't know if you had drunk sex in which you were a willing participant or if you were taken advantage of while passed out. Both things do occur. In other cases it might be for example if you had parked your vehicle and return to discover it missing. The presumption made is that someone stole it but it also could have been towed, repossessed or relocated due to an event.
Then we also can't know how many reports are founded when it comes to this. The nature of the crime means there will seldom be video or audio. Any outside interaction may not be representative of what occurred behind closed doors. Through further interaction fences can be mended and bridges burned.
Further any evidence gained doesn't immediately indicate a crime as regular sexual intercourse can cause the very same things, tenderness, soreness, tearing and so on. Some men and women also enjoy things a bit risquรฉ which people might think were criminal. It ends up being she said and he said. So some reports may indeed be marked unfounded not because a crime didn't occur but because we lack evidence to say one did. Visa versa, circumstances could indicate one occurred when one in fact didn't.
You end up with a situation where few are proven one way or another while the vast majority linger due to insufficient information. Then those in either side could very well be wrongly placed merely due to circumstance. It's not something we'll ever have truly accurate numbers for. The best way to handle the situation though is to continue investigating claims as crimes until we have more information but record them differently. Instead of recording them as these crimes occurred record them as this many allegations have been levied. Then break it down further by how many were convicted and how many reports are marked unfounded.
With how courts and legislators have gradually eroded the second amendment rights, I don't see any reason to believe a Roe defense would work.
Didn't one of the justices come out saying after the fact that they conjured something out of air to justify their finding in favor of abortion?
May we acknowledge that it isn't just the executive branch which may break the law. Legislatures have a habit of passing laws which extend beyond the scope of their power and require the courts to axe.
77 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/1