throwaway_98554
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
For some people, it's just harder to do everyday things. It doesn't mean they can't move around. And for people getting older or with a degenerative disease, continuing to do things normally is also a matter of pride.
To put it in obvious terms, it's like saying that we can add 3-4 stairs at the main entrance, because anybody who don't like stair can enter via the damp alleyway in the back, besides the dumpsters.
If anything I would expect it to go down as computation and memory get cheaper.
We did it. Well done everyone.
That people NEED to be holding something is also funny. Can't have empty hands. Who stages those pictures?
Take for example the relationship between a man and woman.
If both want to live with each other, everything is fine.
What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her?
Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent.
And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
> "In the painting, the black seeds indicate that the fruit has reached maturity," Wehner says.
There's also the possibility the painter simply decided to add black seeds because it would look more like a mature fruit.
Obviously "finance guy" would not only breed other "finance guys". However if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.
> Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?)
That's such a weird position and obviously made by someone who doesn't understand evolution, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it here. It's the equivalent of saying that diseases/cancer/handicaps couldn't exist because "evolution". That is not what parent is talking about when underlying the risks of hindering reproduction for a whole class of citizens.
Any minimally functional group eventually lead to opportunities.
The outgroup (women in this case) want to access those opportunities. Any push back against that will be labeled as misogynistic or ridiculed.
Men have no other choices than to open up the group and let it become just another open space for everyone.
What is surprising is how some groups: 1) just lay down and accept this unilateral loss... 2) even when it is never reciprocated.
Instead of trying to fix the problem by allowing non-monetary ways to segregate, which would be available to everyone, people are busy trying to universalize the problem.
To answer your question: you're not an asshole, but you're the only one without a broken leg... and we'll break it to make things fair to everyone.