magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5hr ago
Nobody really believes a twenty-two year old man wants to settle down and pump out babies every year with his fifteen year old wife
I don't understand. Lots of men want babies.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5hr ago
Why did you post this in the fun thread?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
That's my understanding. I know some cyanide-bearing seeds get through mostly unabsorbed unless damaged (e.g. from putting them in a blender, or chewing them), but I don't know whether apple seeds are one of them and eating any amount of cyanide isn't a great idea.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Oh hey, here's a fun one.
So yeah, these laws are terrible and judges do convict on them. However, it should be noted that police forces don't generally come after you for them. I'm not 100% sure what got this lady punished - seems to have been public pressure on the police from operating commercially and getting noticed - but fanfic authors/readers and VN pirates are generally pretty safe (I wouldn't try to bring VN packages through customs, though).
Citation: four years ago I full-doxxed myself and publically confessed to possessing like 12 illegal VNs and having written an erotic Madoka Magica fanfic, and I wasn't even questioned let alone charged.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
You can eat the arctic and antarctic zones from the side as well, though it might depend somewhat on the type of apple (Red Delicious would make this difficult due to the thick skin and mushy flesh, but there are plenty of firmer, thinner-skinned varieties).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
I'm not actually sure if there's anyone in the world who does the latter, it would imply a very weird outlook where ability to change one's social gender is some sort of… revocable privilege? By and large, "anyone can change their pronouns" vs "no one can change their pronouns" is a binary debate, nuance vs zealotry is a question of what else someone in the former camp believes falls under the umbrella of inalienable trans rights.
I don't really do it based on morality, but I've generally been a lot more hesitant to swap pronouns (among the legitimate three; I utterly refuse to use singular-they or neopronouns) if someone's obviously acting erratic and crazy (given the likelihood that said person is not, in fact, stably trans).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
· Edited 3d ago
Note that in most of the USA, the age of consent actually is 16 or 17. The meme that it's 18 is from a combination of 1) California has 18, and makes most US media, 2) a bunch of other crimes do kick in at 18, just not statutory rape itself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
Mate attractiveness is mostly a relative good. Giving everyone a relative good doesn't have absolute effects.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Blackmail material is frequently of negative utility to the one with it, insofar as it gives a murder motive to the subject of the material.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
You claim it's not because of such attraction on your part, but pure devotion to scientific fact?
Devotion to liberty.
I don't believe I've ever said that there aren't 12-year-old girls that I find sexually attractive. I haven't said that because it'd be untrue; while I'm not a paedophile in the proper sense, there are some very-early bloomers out there and, indeed, postpubescence is all that's really needed for the normal male gaze to approve. However, I have no intention of pursuing them in that fashion, and this is not related to my opposition to the current Anglospheric ages of consent.
Do you realise that you've set up epistemic closure, here? If someone says that he wants to lower the AoC because he wants to fuck kids, you count him as part of your "every time". If someone says the opposite, you count him as a liar and still as part of "every time". That's not an algorithm that depends on what the truth actually is; regardless of the evidence, you'll simply become more sure of yourself.
I actually suggest you take a look through my post history. See if I'm really the sort to lie about myself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Every. God. Damn. Time.
Either you've got a lousy memory, or you're calling me a liar.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
You can cover that with child labour laws.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Making a vaccine or a cure would work. That's what removed syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis as problem STDs.
(Technically, there already is a cure for HIV - bone marrow transplant from someone with CCR5-Δ32 - but that cure is useless because either you take such doses of immunosuppressants that you effectively have AIDS anyway, or you get graft vs. host disease and die even quicker. I mean a useful cure.)
EDIT: I've seen some reports that getting a bone marrow transplant from someone without the mutation, and getting graft vs. host disease, might also work. Still not a useful cure.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
As such, there's almost no political appetite for increasing the age of consent.
I think you mean "decreasing".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
· Edited 7d ago
IMO you do need an AoC, although the argument that sways me is contingent on the AIDS pandemic. Specifically, consent without knowing about HIV isn't fully informed, which means you need sex ed, which means you can't have 5-year-olds consenting to sex because lol good luck getting them to comprehend sex ed.
16-18 is way too high, though. If teens are lying about their ages to get sex, your AoC is too high. Sex ed for preteens and AoC at 13-14 is what I support. And if you get rid of AIDS I'd be willing to abolish it - it's the only one left that is a big deal (the rest are either curable, vaccinable, or so minor nobody really cares).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
Maybe some hacker stole Epstein's Fortnite account after he died? Seems like a really-bad idea, but still more plausible than him being alive. I would still tend toward the "coincidence" explanation, myself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
I find it hard to believe you don't "get" this.
Guy's not posted here much, and SJ doesn't always advertise the full strategy. I can believe he hadn't quite worked it out.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
genuine misogynists who think women have the intellectual fortitude of children
I think that's an exaggeration. I see... four?... major positions here that could be called sexist, although only two of them even somewhat merit the term "misogynist".
-
"Women tend to prefer and/or be good at languages, soft science and pink-collar fields including homemaking; men tend to prefer and/or be good at STEM. So if STEM jobs slew heavily male and the others heavily female, that's not evidence of heinous discrimination, just biology." (I wouldn't call this misogynist.)
-
"We need birth rate to replenish our species, and it is not very good for birth rate for women to normally not settle down until their late twenties or thirties, due to the unforgiving timetable of menopause." (I wouldn't call this misogynist; proposed solutions to the bad norm vary wildly in objectionability, though.)
-
"Women's intuitive preferences for how to resolve problems and conflict are different than men's, and it so happens that the male pattern works better as large-scale policy."
-
"Due to women being better at emotional manipulation than men - including but not limited to the 'woman's tasp' - formal equality and a state monopoly on force tend to produce actual inequality in women's favour."
None of these rely on "women hav[ing] the intellectual fortitude of children". Not saying I'm 100% sold on any of them, and particularly not saying I'm sold on the usually-proposed policy solutions, but AFAICT you're beating up a strawman.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
I did just say that, yes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
I mean, even if you are in the wokest of woke companies, no one is forced to "pray at the altar of DEI." You may be risking your career if you share your spiciest takes about HBD or male/female differences, but you cannot literally be arrested.
ZanarkandAbesFan is British, not American. There are hate speech laws there.
The West is not just the USA, and the state of free speech in the rest is considerably more tattered, to the point that these questions are worth asking. The PRC is still worse, but the bright line you speak of doesn't exist for us and it is... annoying... for you to claim that it does. I don't think I've quite stepped over the line in Victoria with my posts here, but I'm not 100% sure of that (and that's because I'm one of the more moderate Mottizens regarding the culture war).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
It doesn't have to be a hard genocide, but you're still talking about quite a serious invasion of liberty.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
How would you even introduce it in sufficient numbers?
Well, I mean, it does double every generation relative to population growth (because it's passed on to all children, always), so you only need one to kick it off (or a few, to avoid teething problems with the first affected person happening to die childless). Not an imminent threat of extinction, but of course the longer it goes the bigger headache you're going to have uprooting the entire family tree, and you always have the twin problems of "lots of people will object to genocide"/"the necessary social changes to do it anyway over their objection are not especially pleasant and won't necessarily go away".
More imminently, I suppose there are faster-breeding species that we need that could be targetted, although I can't think of a gotcha off-hand (and likely wouldn't share it if I could; while my innate tendency is to be the Oracle, I make some attempt to be the Sage and not dump all my infohazards into public circulation).
He's not talking about CRISPR in human context, but in general, no?
I don't know.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
I mean, I'm fairly certain germline-engineering humans with CRISPR is indeed forbidden.
As for "dangerous", well, two reasons.
-
CRISPR has a tendency to sometimes misfire and fuck up other stuff than what you intended. When tampering with plants or animals, no big deal, do more than necessary and dispose of the defectives. With humans, more of a big deal.
-
CRISPR itself can be encoded into inserted genes. This allows for gene drives - super-heritable traits that are always passed on to offspring (because you inherit one allele for the trait, and then that allele itself overwrites its counterpart from the other parent so you now have two copies and will always pass one of them to any child). One of the more obvious uses of this is in pest control: you introduce engineered versions of the pest species that are super-heritably of one sex, causing extinction when it wipes out the other sex. If such a gene drive were introduced to humans, genocide would be necessary to save the species. More generally, attempts to unilaterally alter the human gene pool this way open up a giant squirming can of worms that we'd all rather remain closed.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
· Edited 14d ago
I have limited experience with Machiavellian manipulation, but my understanding is that the normal pattern is for the cackling villain to tell everyone that X is abusing Y except Y. This is because Y is the one person who has the knowledge and the credibility to publically debunk the false accusation, and it's in the villain's interest for that to be delayed as long as possible.
I suppose it's entirely possible there was such a villain upstream of the people calling.
We have an epidemic of open-source software smart enough to use social engineering techniques and almost certainly hostile to humanity, and that's funny?
More options
Context Copy link