I'm against forced birth, but have to point out that there is the argument, whether realistic or not, that the parent can always give the baby to the foster care system once it's born, so their obligation would be limited to 9 months total.

Personally what I take issue with is the inconsistency of forced-birth laws in the absence of comparable forced-labor laws. In a world of ideal policy, maybe we as a society might agree that a person should be obligated to sacrifice their time and health for the sake of preserving or creating human life. But then it shouldn't be applied only to adult women who had consensual sex. Why shouldn't non-pregnant people be forced to tend a farm for 9 months to produce food for those who are starving, or to spend 9 months working 80-hour weeks at an emergency call center with no pay?

I suspect the answer is that the rights themselves are not the issue here, but rather the motivation to punish women who have consensual sex.

In the academic sense of the term, negative rights include the right to not have things done to you (e.g., to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

Positive rights include the right for you to do something, generally as against others (e.g., the right to have food, healthcare, or education be provided to you by other people).

I'm not sure it is useful to try to categorize abortion rights, for similar reasons why it would be difficult to categorize the right to try and grab the only parachute on a crashing plane. Even if it causes injury or death to others, our general tendency is to treat positive acts of genuine self-preservation as a negative right, if only in the sense that we would never enforce a rule that prohibits the person from trying.

A funky brain teaser on the topic might be whose right of life prevails when a perfectly healthy person turns out to be the only match for 5 patients with failing organs, one needing a new heart, another needing a new intact liver, etc., who are each about to die if we don't kill the healthy person and harvest their organs for transplant. And would the answer change if this wouldn't kill the healthy person, but severely decrease their quality of life - such as involuntarily taking one of their lungs and one of their kidneys?

I hate to talk like a law student but that's sort of the system we already have. When a person certifies that they have read a contract (such as terms and conditions), it does actually mean something. No one would want to do business if anyone could be released from a contract just because they were lying about whether they agreed to be bound by it.

You might be able to think of it like the safety presentation that happens before takeoff on every commercial flight in the US. If you look around at that time, very few people are ever paying attention to the video or flight attendant. Why is that, if everyone is supposed to be concerned about their own safety? Maybe they think this presentation will be the same as all the others, so they can safely ignore it. Does that make it the airline's fault if a person doesn't know where the emergency exits are when something does happen? No, the typical intuition - and a relatively necessary assumption on the airline's part - is that each person is responsible for knowing the information given to them in that presentation.

Similarly, it does not necessarily change much if a person has to check off multiple boxes instead of just one, or if they have to wait a few minutes before they can sign off, etc. People will tune out whatever they want to tune out, but we can't have a workable system if that's what absolves them of responsibility.

--That being said, US contract law does take this to some extremes that should be carved out as unacceptable exceptions to the rule. The case of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute comes to mind where passengers were bound by terms printed on the back of a cruise ticket that they only received after they already paid for it.

I'd imagine it's the things that still kinda make it as headlines today, but don't get much coverage anymore because everyone is used to it by now.

"By the way, this weekend's mass shootings led to 10 deaths and 29 injuries total, a little more than last week. Parents, remember to bundle up your kids this fall semester with the latest BulletBlocker Youth Jacket, 10% off if you order today! Now back to the news you actually wanted to hear about: the former U.S. President allegedly commits even more crimes..."

Even if this caught on, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with another Wickard v. Filburn. Because if we don't punish you for growing "too much" wheat, on your own land, for your own personal use, then how are we supposed to force you to buy it from us?

(TOS spoiler for one episode)

Just in case any lurkers are still wondering: I think - but don't remember 100% - the guy everyone's calling Kevin was some random crew member in TOS who took over the ship's control room and started trolling the ship's PA system, until the main characters managed to break into the room and subdue him.

The episode gave him an unreasonably long monologue with the PA system, during which he sang an entire song ("I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen"). It's also a little weird that this one crew member can take over the entire ship even though he's some average joe who we don't really see again.

No idea where the memes about him started though.

First of all, nice bait, looks delicious, think I'll chow down.

I think this because I’ve spent over a decade of my life trying to understand where people come from and getting nowhere with helping them.

This mindset sounds closer to the problem than to the solution. Do you truly believe that the best way to interact with an extremist is to blindly judge them, then assume that they will question their entire worldview because one person, who has made no good faith effort to understand them, decides to call them names?

Many extremists, though perhaps not most, feel the way they do because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing. They listen to the lived experiences of people they trust and discount the words of people they do not. The blind judgment of others only 'proves' to them that it's all one big conspiracy, everyone else are sheep, and that they are the only ones who can think for themselves.

🎶 oh, I can so just sit here and cry 🎶

but fr what worked well for me was blocking, deleting, getting rid of (or stuffing into a rarely used closet) anything that reminded me of them, then distracting myself 24/7 long enough to later process my emotions with a little bit of distance from the event itself - not to block out the feelings but to just avoid ruminating on them.

Mostly the point was buying time to provide my monkey brain with hard proof that I can survive without that person, that way it stops shooting me up with the Bad Chemicals every time I think of them.

That isn't the defining characteristic, though [ETA: under the conventional understanding of the word, at least - apologies for appearing to ask you for clarification only to then argue with you about it]. There is already a word for that and it's called entitlement. What distinguishes an incel is the added belief that there is something wrong with people who have romantic or sexual preferences that the incel disagrees with (as long as the preference is limited to consenting adults).

Personally my main gripe is with the implication that a person, who simply wants someone with traits that the person doesn't have him/herself, is therefore entitled in a way that puts them in the wrong. To hopefully illustrate why that's weird: I tend to be romantically interested in those bleeding-heart optimist types even though my own philosophy is relatively pragmatic. I admire that characteristic in others but have no intention of adopting it myself. It isn't obvious that this fact, on its own, makes me an incel, even if optimism is more rare, desirable, or difficult to maintain.

I think the discussion would be clearer if you defined what you think incel beliefs are? The typical description I know of is, "Members of my preferred gender refuse to have sex with me because there is something wrong with them, and it's their fault that I'm lonely." It looks like here the assumed definition is, "I'm happy being alone unless someone extremely desirable comes along," which imo is the opposite of incel behavior.

The reason you are getting called an incel here is likely because, by characterizing the latter opinion as something wrong with "so many" women when it is merely a lack of interest in dating most men, you start to come dangerously close to expressing the former opinion yourself.

The thing is, millions of people have been training for this since childhood. An all-good and all-powerful being would totally intend for some children to get bone cancer, because uh... we just have to have faith in his plan. Terrorists, torturers? Part of the plan. Pregnant 10-year-olds? Believe it or not: plan.

By comparison, now that Trump is one of their idols, the OP doesn't even register. Oh yeah it was definitely a conspiracy to make him look bad, or actually they're all being coerced by liberals, people identifying as trans, and/or China, or it's a test of faith, or it's ok when they do it because uhhh Hillary Clinton...

I think it has to be somewhere in between. This 'real deal' theory doesn't explain the popularity of hentai, but at the same time, OnlyFans shows that some people reaaallly care about the personal element. I would bet niche kinks (especially those 'illegal to make but legal to watch'?) will lean heavily on AI for content, but the rest will probably change based on our culture's attitude toward AI in general.

Politicians don't care (enough to make a meaningful change) as long as most people still vote for them.

Corporations don't care as long as most people still buy their stuff.

Most people don't care as long as their own personal choices won't solve the problem.

Guess we can try again in another 60 million years or so?

I'd like to enact a new law that says you're allowed to walk past someone even if it means invading their personal space a little bit. Like it's ok buddy, you actually don't need to run 359 degrees around me just because I am standing near a corner.

I've just finished the game on normal difficulty after about 90 hours, probably because it was a 'blind' playthrough so I managed to just never encounter more than the first 5 companions.

Have to say the ending was stylistically great but very WTF in terms of closure, even after the patches to extend the epilogue. It feels a lot like the Mass Effect 3 ending before they added the director's cut. And even then, the ROs are a lil buggy in terms of contradicting your previous conversations.

Everything leading up to that was really fun though. Maybe the real treasure was the magical artifacts we stole along the way.

Most people in first world countries will probably understand 'L' and 'R' anyway. But hypothetically, the problem could probably be solved by adding another letter, the same way we know that 'T' is for 'Tuesday' and 'Th' is for 'Thursday.'

It's a parody of an ancient meme (knowyourmeme link) where in the original, the rant above is instead "That's my world without you bro."

Also not that it justifies the pay disparity but do people really think there is zero labor involved in management? Cause even then, it comes with a crapton of liability risk under respondeat superior. Not sure everyone wants to be personally sued for every negligent mistake their coworkers make.

Casualties... 8 crew members subpoenaed, 15 sent to mandatory arbitration. Let's not let their sacrifices be in vain. Ready the counterclaims. Prepare to file!

Judge Albright is kind of a (controversial) celebrity among intellectual property lawyers. Until the district started randomizing case assignments, everyone used to try to file in Albright's court because he's so plaintiff-friendly. The plaintiffs here got lucky with this judge assignment, too bad the Circuit Court is not amused lol.

Yeah I was scratching my head at this one. Cop had better have a really good reason here because otherwise, have fun getting Section 1983'd. I am not sure qualified immunity would apply against the right to peacefully assemble, unless either there was reasonably a threat of danger, or some legal authority made the assembly or its actions illegal (e.g. no one allowed on school campuses after 9pm, a citywide noise ordinance on weekdays, etc).

• am not a licensed lawyer and this is neither advice nor guaranteed correct analysis... just in case.