Modern_medicine_isnt

My mistake on the definition. I was looking more for the phycological underlying reason for that attraction. Unless you are saying a person is just born that way, and it isn't thier fault or something.

Why is the sky blue? Because it is blue, I don’t really understand the confusion.
Pedophile is a title defined by an action. It has no connection to why the action was chosen. A person screwing someone who they legitimately thought was 20, but was actually 17 is by definition a pedophile. But the reason why they did it is very likely different than someone who had sex with a 13 year old and knew it.

I suppose I just don't get it. She seems to be good looking. She could easily have an adult male with the mentality of a teenager, we know there are plenty of them. All I can see is opportunity/ease of access. Even the power dynamic would be the same with plenty of adult guys desperate to get laid.

And every chad should have a gay guy friend. The women will always be around. The law of averages says the chad will end up with lots of options that find him desirable. Plus having a gay guy friend will likely improve said chad in various ways that most women like.

Your reading into my choice of the word scenario too much. I just needed a word for the line of events that occur as a result of your plan.

Over the years, I have seen a fair number of articles about patterns found when looking at the houses that don't burn down when a wild fire passes through. California apparently has some regulations and even does inspections for plant placement around houses in high risk zones. Oregon will do a free assessment and if you qualify, give you a small tax credit for making improvements to refuce your risk. These though are just the cheapest things that can be implemented. Expanding that into construction standards is what I think the best plan is.

And while I agree with your assessment of the political climate, the supreme court recently allowed Hawaii to sue some companies essentially for the effects of climate change. I was surprised by this, but that means at least states could sue to pay for programs to buyout homeowners.

I worked at intel for a while. It deserves to be destroyed. But I live in an area with a lot of well off intel employees. It could tank my house value among other major impacts to the community. Like I am sure he would kill the matching donation stuff which would be a significant reduction of the amount of money non profits get in this area. So I hope the destruction is slow enough for other chip companies in the area to absord some of the workers.

They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn't afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won't be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.

And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money... why should they be average citizens. They didn't cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.

I was wondering last night, how cold does it have to be for trump to skip his own inauguration.

Incorporating is just the legal paperwork that brings a corporation into existence. Never done it, but I bet it is just paperwork and money.

So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won't be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can't afford it either, but can't move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won't be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.

And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don't think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.

And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.

What is the alternative that people are going to, and how is their moderation?

No it doesn't. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn't. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn't solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.