ViridianNott

Enjoy your dino chicken nuggets

You have the palate of a child

It is really dumb to make it a hard cutoff in the first place. Colorado uses a system in which someone who is 15 can consent to sex with someone no older than 18. At 16 you can date consent with someone up to age at 19, and at 17 up to age 20. At age 18, people are considered adults and there is no longer an age limit to consent.

It is wholly necessary to protect children from sexual predators using age of consent laws. At the same time, it is a bit ridiculous to pretend that people in their teens don’t have sexual relationships with one another, and the law ought to reflect that. I certainly don’t feel that an 18-year-old should be considered a criminal for dating a 17-year-old, anyway.

Honestly as someone who is also in research, that is pretty understandable. Preprint papers are all subject to peer review and editing after the fact, but are a good opportunity to stake your claim on a big discovery before someone else can. Preprints are inherently not final versions and I guarantee that the mistakes will be caught before publication.

Okay so I agree that it needs to be peer reviewed and independently verified before we can trust it. But how exactly does the preprint look rushed?

Very true that it needs to be confirmed, but worth mentioning that every paper in history was at one point or another unreviewed and uncooborated. The fact that this isn’t yet doesn’t inherently mean anything bad for the quality of the results.

I’m just a biologist so I can’t weigh in to the credibility of the paper beyond that

I appreciate the recommendation but I don’t see my perspective on this issue as flawed or in need of changing.

I do have a lot of issues with the way wealth is distributed in capitalist societies… our income from work is a downright shitty attempt at approximating people’s value to society. Some people get more than they deserve and others get a lot less.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s wrong that at least a large part of a person’s value and worth should be determined by how they choose to spend their time. I see it as inherently unjust that someone who doesn’t apply themselves in a way that improves or maintains the world should be rewarded the same as someone who does.

The world is full of passions and hobbies that everyone would love to earn money from, but there are a lot of shitty, difficult, and hard jobs that need doing and but won’t get it without some sort of incentive. Thus, inequality, at least to some extent, is an essential feature of human societies that strive to improve over time. Every communist country has been wrought with inequalities under the surface, because they couldn’t motivate people without it!

This is not to say that anyone who honestly tries according to their ability deserve poverty, and I strongly believe in having a social safety net to help those people (I consider myself an Obama/Clinton democrat for reference).

While capitalism is an ultimately bad and inefficient way of rewarding people for their contribution to society, it would be far, far worse to fail to reward those that work extra hard, especially in jobs that are otherwise undesirable.

That’s the perspective I come from, and I think we simply have to agree to disagree.

I guess you’re right. You can say it makes me an asshole if you want, but I don’t think that person deserves the same credit or wealth as a person who got an education and used it to work full time in a specialized field.

I do not see that as a weird or unjust opinion.

I am guessing you are not very familiar with the antiwork community as a whole, but there are plenty of young people who truly no aspirations about contributing to society.

There’s a whole rabbithole to go down on that front. There’s also the term NEET which refers to (usually young) people who are “not in education, employment, or training.”

In other words, people who do not work or better themselves and survive using a combination of welfare and living with their parents or friends.

There’s also a lot to criticize about people who purposely under-employ themselves, like the antiwork moderator who lived with her parents, had no degrees or training, and aspired to be a dogwalker for 10-15 hours a week. She technically worked, but used others as a crutch to avoid doing anything more than the bare minimum.

I never said giving up a job to raise children is not labour, or that it doesn’t count as contributing to society. I was criticizing people who want to give up work to do nothing

Not at all! I think it’s enough for everyone to contribute according to their abilities. You’re making a living using your skills instead of mooching off of others, and that’s more than a lot of people can say.

I also believe that the vast majority of work benefits human society in some way or another, even if it’s sometimes harder to see. As long as there isn’t a scalable alternative to plastic, people need it to meet their daily needs and standards, and you contribute to that directly.

Because my “productivity” as you call it directly benefits the health and happiness of those around me. Likewise, it is impossible for you to eat modern food, live in a house, and go on the internet without directly benefiting from the labor of others.

I think it is, by definition, selfish to benefit from the labor of others without giving anything in return, if it’s at all possible for you to do so. You clearly have the mental and physical capacity to argue with internet strangers, and therefore you have the mental and physical capacity to carry out at least some labor.