webadict

I'll bet she could carry more meat than you.

Be careful what you wish for, or they will find the one woman trained in medicine who wants to sterilize people using logic derived from eugenics.

But it was an issue before. And it's an issue now. So the phrase isn't really the issue. It's an excuse to do nothing because you aren't the problem, whereas before the excuse to do nothing was that you didn't know about the problem. And if they say "Some men are rapists" to make you feel better, fuck if it isn't an excuse to do nothing because you're not one of them.

It is the responsibility of all people (and thus all men) to stop sexual assaults, and to blame people that are far more likely to be the victims of those assaults for making rhetoric that is extreme in response is to expect a perfect victim that did, does, and will do nothing wrong.

If you would like to use the AIDS epidemic as an example, it would be to treat the gay men as wrong when they said they should seize control of the FDA. It's, technically speaking, not helpful, and there were many working in the public health sector trying their hardest to help those affected by AIDS... But, like, you understand why they said that, right? There were definitely protests before that where nothing happened, where their issues were ignored, and their were people in the government who were to blame.

I think men treating women like sex objects happened long before anyone said "All men are rapists" seriously. How does anyone address the historical (and current) context of subjugation and oppression women face under men (who do hold a large majority of positions of power)? I think reducing the conversation to what you said is, frankly, the tactic of the right, and it's really easy to give up on learning that context if one takes a victim complex, like when anyone attacks white people or Christians or straight people or cis people or cops, and ignore everything related to why those groups might have that hate towards them.

How can you address that context if you say "Not all men" and then do nothing to address the original critiques in the first place? If you pretend like the conversation starts and stops at the logical disproving of "All men are rapists," then will you simply ignore that marital rape exists? Will you ignore that women do have higher rates of being sexually assaulted and that we make it hard to do anything about those assaults?

I, sadly, think of "All men are rapists" as a defensive mantra. That we, as a society, have to teach girls and women to fear men because we failed at multiple other points. It isn't true, and it probably isn't a great attitude to take, but I don't know that I can fault anyone for having that view.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don't really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don't believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that's a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It's just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it's not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn't exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Endorsements have been a thing throughout a lot of human history because we are very social beings. It may sound silly, but some people literally care more what an entertainer says instead of any or all politicians or political experts, and will vote because of it.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name's origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little -- in this case, Jessica -- it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could've changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman's name... or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn't even be particularly odd for the name.

You keep going in circles. Whose safety? The fact that it is related to the bottom line DIRECTLY contradicts yourself, that safety is only a concern as related to the money, because the money is the only concern, and that money flows to the owner.

You can call my acumen bad, but I'm just using historically very successful businesses and their complete and utter neglect for worker, consumer, and environmental safety.

You did.

I tend to disagree with this, not that it's entirely incorrect, but I think quality can't be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor

Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn't factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn't factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren't paid more than an average software developer because it's not meritocratic for workers.

Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it's easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?