betwixthewires @ betwixthewires @lemmy.basedcount.com

Posts

0

Comments

220

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's nothing wrong with it period, knowing or not.

Appeasing such an unreasonable person by making excuses is not the way to approach a childish hissyfit.

You know what is a lack of people skills? Throwing fits at people for refusing to play pretend with you.

The irony in this comment is uncanny.

Absolutely not, that person is mentally ill and therefore unstable and unpredictable. You're just a reasonable person who acknowledges that adults don't throw hissyfits and slam food all over the place at work unless they want to not have a job. Don't listen to these clowns, you're not an asshole, not even close.

Yeah I understand that, but I don't think it's a good rule even generally speaking. It doesn't actually prevent abuse, all it does is disempower people from being autonomous via social stigmatization as a mechanism rather than penalty of law.

Personally, I think the number is arbitrary and there are 20 year olds incapable of making responsible decisions, and 15 year olds that are. But that's the world we live in, it's a compromise we make with our community to prevent abuse of little kids, and a way to set expectations of people, "by this age you need to be capable of looking out for yourself or you're going to have a hard time". I'm OK with this particular compromise, arbitrary though it may be. I don't know that there is a smarter alternative, and half your age plus seven is most definitely further from the goal than a set age when someone is expected to be able to navigate the world on their own. In older times (and in some less developed cultures even today), people were expected to be capable at puberty, in others it was when their fathers said they could, and we don't do that anymore because those systems almost always lead to fathers selling their children. So I'm happy with the current rule.

I said food was made from carbon dioxide and water, and repeatedly explained the process I was referring to. I never once said carbon dioxide was "in" food, although even if I did I don't think it is this easy to misunderstand what I'm saying.

100% OK with it, yes. We either respect someone's decisions or we don't. If we decide "someone is free to do what they want when they're 18" then that's that. If that's what they choose to do then it's none of my business.

There are plenty of abusive, coercive and controlling relationships between people of the same age range. There are plenty of 40 year old women getting mistreated in new relationships. If a 19 year old is with a 70 year old, I doubt there's some power dynamic there, most likely the woman is selling herself in a situation like that for a big payday, which is her choice. There are way less 70 year olds controlling their 18 year old girlfriends than there are 32 year olds doing it to their 30 year old girlfriends. It would seem age is not a good heuristic when trying to determine whether abuse is occurring, when it comes to adults at least.

I'm perfectly happy with our societies coming to consensus on a general age where one is considered capable of making their own decisions, in this scenario particularly sexually and romantically. I think the age range between 16 and 18 that we have decided on in various western societies sounds reasonable. Our laws respect our autonomy from that point on, yet somehow society is starting to not do that and I don't think that's a good thing, or really very genuine either.

As far as perception, I have a philosophy of not giving a single fuck about perception. People that judge me aren't going to live my life for me, they're not going to come into my life and make me happy, so fuck their opinions. If I'm 40 and find love and happiness with an 18 year old and they don't like it they can kiss my ass.

This is a stupid rule.

The good rule is to judge people as individuals and respect their autonomy.

No. Don't be a clown.

Are you thick? The food is made into food by plants from it.

Yeah, so the plants turn carbon dioxide and water into cellulose and water mostly, herbivores digest the cellulose into protein and carbohydrates we can eat, we eat them and turn that protein and carbohydrates into our bodies and energy using oxygen, back into carbon dioxide and water and expel it. It's the carbon cycle.

Yup, and food is made almost entirely out of carbon dioxide and water.

I thought deaths on screen were real and that people volunteered to die to create the production and wondered why in the world someone would die just to make a movie.

It's not lonely. You might think it is but it isn't. I did a decade in the cities, bar hopping, out with friends, online dating, all that stuff. It was all surface level and dating was like crawling through a desert wasteland eating bugs for survival.

I met my wife and we started a family after I moved to the country. I met her organically, at a pool. I courted her the old fashioned, organic way, no conspicuous spending to impress, none of that bullshit, just good old fashioned being myself, being respectful but persistent, that kind of stuff. She's an impressive woman in basically any way you can imagine.

To have a rich social life in the country, you need to 1) not move to a tweaker town, 2) move somewhere rich with the kind of people you like to be around (I don't mean ideology, I mean age, sex, etc) and 3) go to places where people are and talk to them. Don't judge. Outside of cities you don't have to pay someone to go outside to do something, you just go outside and do it. Everything doesn't cost money.

So if you are just sick of the materialism, the traffic, the constant expenses, the needless complexity, I'd say a small town is for you, ofc provided you pick one that isn't full of 100 year old people or tweakers, and just go outside all the time and don't be afraid to talk to people. If you like looking at the stars you'll do just fine.

Good god you people.

Microblogging I'm assuming.

Pleroma is pretty lightweight. If you're looking for really lightweight, check out Honk. https://humungus.tedunangst.com/r/honk

I meant when the development of transportation infrastructure started, cars were certainly faster than trains.

What else has changed? Cars became available and roads were easier to build than tracks.

I'm not against trains, I love them, especially the prospect of using them for long distance travel between rural areas. But people in rural areas use cars because there was a natural incentive to use cars: they're faster than horses and trains and the roads were already there, bonus they can be used for work on the land as machinery. Car centric government policies really are an effect of the widespread use of cars. They entrench the current way things work and create inertia in moving forward from it, but they didn't create it, at least not in the middle of nowhere.

Yes, but mine probably doesn't match with yours.

Rural america is not like rural Britain. Rural Britain is probably more like the outer undeveloped suburbs of a city in america. In rural america, you can go a hundred miles on a highway without seeing a single house.

I like the bike lanes and footpaths idea for rural places just as much as anywhere. I don't hate cars like a lot of the people here, but I dislike them a lot and understand why you'd want cities not designed around them, and in rural areas, other options. Busses or trains between population centers, even small ones, are great but in rural america you're not even getting to the train station without a car, and more stops doesn't solve that problem because it's so spread out and disorganized. Even 100 years ago, cities built subways and what not, rural people rode horses or if they got on a train they were going pretty far away. Public transport in places like that doesn't make any sense and didn't even before cars.