Darkpriest

@BruceVC I didn't say you don't see such interactions, I just said they do not produce any offspring and do not pair bond long term to upbring the offspring. I have quite a few such friends. Yes, I'm inclusive, tolerant and do well in diversified communities too. Even they agree that some of the groups are just nutts and they also agree that there is a hihjer rate of promiscuity and swapping of sex partners and lower rate of long term relationships that could substitute a proper family. They also note that their are nutt-cracks in that community chasing clicks and following etc and they would do more harm to kids than good, as they are rooted too deeply in their own ideology and could possibly not tolerate well if the adopted kid would want to be a strong straight figure. I also say that it should be legal, but the risk factors are different and there are more of them. The thing is the difference in vetting and risk would probably have crazy people calling "dsicrimination" Again, we come to a point of what can be decided in a democratic process. Again, have your own. Nothing stops you biologically.

Have your own kids? No one prevents you from doing that? To be honest, I'd more focus on easier access to invitro and perhaps surogate services overall. Adoption is a bit tricky in general. There are few families that can do it right, and evolutionary it's proven that it's preferable to have parents of both genders. (there is no mammal with same sex reproduction). I'm not saying it's impossible, it's however justified to have even more scrutinity here. I would not prevent it legally though. It should just have clear criteria, propper vetting and explanations for wanna be parents and proper liability coverage, if those relationships mistreat the kids or force them to do something they would not want. (so parents will not try to create toys out of kids and force upon some ideas of sex change etc.) For example, trying to adopt a kid (both girl and boy) , who had high testosterone levels at birth will bring more problems down the road to a family without a strong male figure and this needs to be a stable family prospect.

CNN already sucking up, Bloomberg alrrady covering that things look worse than we knew with Covid, due to Trump keeping people in the dark (no matter that the Fauci's team hasn't changed one bit) Corporates sucking up, like an Amazon open letter, "what can we do to help our dear beloved leader... tfu... I mean POTUS". Meanwhile vid inciting to voilence and more division sitting without any moderation at Twitter Mixing up regular voters with a really fringe element is very dangerous. Doesn't matter that there are also conservative people that are supporters of a different worldview. Just get to the camps and re-educate or gas all the wrong thinkers already. Suddenly, ANTIFA exists https://mobile.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN29Q0H9

I wanted to make sure, because of this term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion Sometimes people think some stance is secular, but they do it in such a vehement way, that in fact they create a religion.

That I can agree with then, so secular would not mean atheistic or ideologically driven? What you describe I'd fit more under experimental science

Well, he definately was at a waist size of an average American

They are scrambling and thinking, what to outrage about now to generate similar traffic. I'm sure they will still go Trump this and that. Meanwhile, keeping to SM censorship and its consequences. https://archive.is/GmCsG#selection-2953.0-2957.246

Both, technically, secular is a type of a religious belief (you believe there is no form of higher being, but cannot prove it or disprove it)

So, if a company says, identify with this symbol and wear it or you will be fired, is that a breach in human rights? I guess, perhaps this is not the best topic to derail to various philisophical questions and lets just go back to bashing one anothers political viewes or what's presented in various media spaces.

What is deemed human rights can change and it did change in the past. Would you be in favor of some group defining them or majority of human population deciding what they are?

Yes it does, and my question is more aimed to show that things related to rights and beliefs are matter of perception. Laws can change, even what is deemed as human rights can change with time (and it did change) , so it seems there is nothing set in stone, aside of what 'opinion' is leading in a given timeframe.

@BruceVC Now, this will be very controversial what I will say and is in no way something mandatory to answer or have a stance on as it touches a very sensitive topic. If freedom of religious beliefs, collides with opinion and beliefs of secular position of LGBT+ movement, where would you draw a line and put who is right in their demands and rights of expression? Also, if most people would vote for criminalizing some of these beliefs, would you agree with such a democratic voice? Where is the line what should be done and decided by vote of the masses in the democracy?

Yes, and other companies in other countries can deny them access to the local internet (it does not matter that the owner of that company really likes a given political group and officials, does it?) , and we can create more echo chambers, more bubbles, more extreme views can fester, and societies can polarize more and dehumanize each other more. Just perfect.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/ireland-needs-four-million-migrants-to-sustain-state-pension-system-39985277.html So the cultural changes and as a result lower replacement rates in the 'native' population (lower rate of marriegas, higher divorce rates, lower child count per family, later pregnancies, etc.), require immigrants to cover the gaps required in the permanent debt driven growth model of economy. At which point society and economy will collapse and lead to a really ugly global conflict?

One thing is to remove an account of a suspect, who participated in the illegal entry to the capitol, the other thing is to remove someone for voicing the views and opinion or even lies. As long as that is within the legal speech and the person is not charged or put into a 'suspect' position, then you should never, ever censor what that person is saying, especially when you are not liable for what that person is saying. You might categorize it as Adult Only if there is some language, profanity, but that's it. Otherwise, the SM is free speech argument collapses and changes to 'free speech as long as it is our views', which is not meeting the criteria of free speech, right? It will for sure make a lot more people approve of actions against politically biased SM, even if in principle they would be critical of a given 'regulatory' action.

So the politically driven private censorship of various legal political views is now used as a valid excuse for more authoritarian individuals to curb on social media overall. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/turkey-turns-table-twitter-well-never-allow-digital-fascism It's now hard to defend sm as free speech platforms, if they've proven they are anything but that. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-twitter-pinterest-ad-ban-social-media-law

They couldn't. Haven't you heard? Apparently it was done by Putin's order, and Trump instigated a capitol coup as per his puppetmaster orders... M I mean, the level of butthurt and delusional is through the roof... @Lexxthis is apparently a Twitter accoubt that spreads BS, as you asked to point you to. This is some Q level stuff...

Lets see a reaction. I bet, that people who pushed for Russian interferance last election tthe hardest, will be the ones dismissing this as a possibility, and outragous imposibility, etc. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/china-sought-influence-2020-us-election-director-national-intelligence-assesses

Doesn't work too well with current students, even at Harvard. https://iblnews.org/harvard-students-request-to-revoke-graduate-diplomas-of-prominent-trump-supporters/ But such is the price of neglecting education in favor of dogmatism and zealotry. Funny, how looking at the words of this person from the 80s, one cannot escape inclinations to spot corelation of those warnings with what is in the last couple decades and today going on in US and by extension in the Western culture, while the biggest competitors remain culturally homogenous and working towards their greater goals. I wonder, how much truth there was in those words, and how much of a manipulation. Can't really verif the source of the clip.

I laughed a bit too loud, and only because I've just watched Terminator 2: Judgement Day on my Sunday evening back to classics watch list

I guess you should read this then. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/the-end-does-not-justify-the-means,politics,3409.html @BruceVC might have something for you as well

Well, there is some value there, labs, equipment and most important, networking. However, it seems to me personaly, that a lot of the cost is to upkeep needless overhead and activities. I mean, things like gender studies or diversity officer, or some pompous celebrations/events, hobby clubs, are things you can could safely get rid of and you would not notice a thing in a drop of quality. On the contrary, you would probably see the increase in quality, because the school would focus on its primary role, to give you skillset for the major you picked. Kind of works in countries that had fast growth and increase in the quality of life.

Lawyers will always be there as long as there are politicians and beurocracy. Software engineers are already relegated to a good profession only to real good ones and passionate ones. Offshoring of the jobs and work in a global network pushes average and regular software engineering jobs from high cost to lower cost locations (India, China, Ukraine, Belarus) Even high quality work is pushed, unless its 'strategic' and needs to be near the top senior management.

Well, the safe choices for career paths are always: - medical - lawyer - construction: highly qualified, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, architects, machine operators Careers that are safe, if you are passionate about the work you are doing: - software engineering - machine engineering - system/solution architect - data architect - athletics: personal trainer - gardening/farming - cook - food engineer/food processing designer - chemists/bio-chemists - bio-engineer/genetics - change manager/restructure specialist - business analytic - social engineer/marketing - academic teacher/lecturer/researcher in niche fields that require technical skillset-physics, math, geology, chemistry, biology, technology Other jobs are either low value or hobby jobs, as they are easily replacable by tech, or there is abundance of people with a given skillset needed for a particular job - like most clerk jobs or customer service jobs or junior and middle grade managers.

I agree, but printing money and going into more debt won't solve that. On the contrary, it will expidite that process even more.