I can only conclude that Jaymes Black (the critic in question) has only recently come out of a decades-long coma. Hurting people is Republican politics.
SwingingTheLamp
joined 2 years ago
Hmm, hectare-sized water tank, a production team to create a continuous, live video feed that matches what's happening on Earth, immense amount of effort at rigging (and rotoscoping) to simulate low-gravity, all the effort to keep the conspiracy quiet? If I were NASA, I think I would take a bunch of shortcuts, and locate the fake ISS set in Earth orbit. It'd be a lot easier.
Personally, I'd go with the idea that the Democrats are the ones who fight for brightly-colored warning signs, guardrails, and PPE for the operators of the orphan crushing machine.
Can we, y'know, maybe be more accurate in talking about this? Pedophilia is a disorder by which people are sexually aroused by and attracted to pre-pubescent children who lack the development of secondary sexual characteristics. Pedophiles, on some level, know it's wrong and hide it, and I believe most don't want to be that way and many decide not to act on it.
On the other hand, a 17-year-old is fully sexually mature. This guy isn't a pedophile, stuck with a mental health issue that he was born with. No, he's a creep who chooses to be a deeply-shitty person, probably because he gets off on the power differential between himself and a 17-year-old. If power is your kink, there are plenty of more-or-less healthy ways to indulge in power play with a consenting partner. He's a member of a political party/cult that celebrates hierarchy and using power to hurt people.
TL;DR: He's not a pedophile, he's worse. We should stop smearing pedophiles by confusing them with Republicans.
This is what I tell people about why we'll never do anything about school and other mass shootings. We can get used to danger and death, and it'll just fade into the background as "normal." After all, we've done it with traffic violence.
...no, I'm not invited to parties— why?
I have to say that I doubt that very much.
I'm sorry that you've had such troubles in the past. Learning from past mistakes isn't an example of free will, though.
This sounds like good news? Putting a cap on the number of nurses isn't the way to reduce understaffing. Or is this a reporter that can't math?
I'm not telling you to do anything, it's all hypothetical: Could you decide that punching yourself in the face—hard—is enjoyable? It seems like if you could decide that right here and now, that'd be a real easy way to make life (as good as it may be) even better.
Cards on the table, I'm pretty sure we all know the answer. No, we cannot decide to improve our lives by cutting off digits or socking ourselves in the nose, because those things are damaging, and we cant simply decide to make them feel good. I feel very confident that I can't convince you to to it. (Thank goodness!)
The things that we can change our emotional reaction to are things that we were conditioned by an external stimulus (tradition or trauma or whatever) to have a certain reaction to. The decision to change is always driven by discomfort with that emotional reaction, another stimulus. Nobody is going to decide that they need to stop enjoying social affirmation, for instance, unless there's some powerful, outside factor driving that decision.
In short, if we all react to the same stimulus in predictable ways, where's the free will?
I figured out recently from Lemmy discussions that people have different concepts of what free will means. Humorously, one of them operates within a deterministic mindset, while the other points out the determinism.
Best analogy that I can think of at the moment is the difference between a drill press and a 4-axis CNC mill. The drill press has one degree of freedom, down and up. It's locked in. The mill has 4 degrees of freedom, and it can run code that makes its behavior highly complex. For some people, that's good enough: The mill has free will while the drill press does not.
The view of free will that recognizes determinism says that humans have innumerable degrees of freedom, so our behavior looks complex, but our conscious choice is just the various competing influences shaking out.
No, I mean you, right now, with your free will.
IIRC, Norway provided a real-world study on this. No surprise: A handful of blowhards left for lower-tax countries, but virtually all of the rich people stayed and just paid higher taxes.