nking

Such nonsense. It’s obviously a mania. It follows the curve. It’s so obvious, why can nobody see this?

No freedom for you! Next!

It’s a lot less funny when charlatans convince a crowd to start drinking rubbing alcohol like they did in Iran in an attempt to prevent covid 19. Hundreds died

Thats part of the marketing, the official hip drug of the liberal sticking it to the man. But not anymore, you’re paying taxes on that weed.

Why are we giving it a free pass? There’s no strong evidence it’s risk free, it’s just another street drug. Perhaps it’s believed that if you smoke you’re more likely to develop liberal values. If you can really call drug induced beliefs values.

Choking makes you as equally dead as any other cause. Dead is dead, no difference to the victim. It’s naïve to think cannabis is harmless, it can absolutely be lethal as a consequence of behavior or messing up any of the million different variables that your body needs regulated to keep you going long term.

Very revealing how self interest can blind a type of person to an obvious scam. This guy got lucky but they almost had him. I can’t help but think of crypto.

I wonder if the pandemic->depression->worldwar cycle from the last century will repeat.

I’m afraid our collective genetics does not tell of a history of fidelity. The standard successful procreation strategy involves children through many partners.

And besides, aren’t sexual experiences enjoyment? Why deny yourself and your partner pleasure and variety? You could both agree to not let the other watch TV and just glare at each other over every meal, but that’s going to get old pretty fast.

Not that I’m against marriage as it is today, but for the fact that for a decision that so radically defines the lives of those involved, I think there should be more deliberation in the details.

Sure if you can get your partner to sign you can set whatever terms you both agree on. Fully customizable. But most death-do-us-part marriages aren’t honored, so that may not be the best deal for you because since that contact comes with no predefined exit strategy, if you have assets that means litigation if someone wants out.

In terms of infidelity, this attitude doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If I meet a woman and start a relationship I’m not rationally going to hold it against her that she’s slept with other men before me, and if the relationship ends I wouldn’t be concerned if she slept with other men (or women I know) after me. So then, why should I be so concerned if during our relationship she sleeps with other people? Disease and paternity issues can be managed with protection and DNA testing. You know, I wouldn’t dare tell someone they aren’t free to do as they please with their own body. They might turn around and ask me why.

The thing is, speaking for myself, every 5 years or so I’m almost a completely different person. Same context, different tenant. People change and they get bored. Maybe they don’t want to commit the entire rest of their lives to a single relationship. Divorce is the norm already, so let’s just standardize it and reduce the trauma.

That’s a good compromise, keep both names. And the kids if any can start with the last names of the same sex parent then choose one or the other when they become adult. It’s easy enough to retire these aged concepts. In a way the marriage contract is a technology to be advanced. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for a startup here, marriage 2.0. Trouble is people will see the contract as negotiable from then on. Custom marriage contacts would become the norm leading to new lifestyles, perhaps including communal partnerships, and further, women would have a great deal more leverage depending on which variant of the marriage contract they are willing to accept. Although it could be said their bargaining power would be restored rather than increased since it was clearly taken from them in the past using religious shame tactics.