Catalyst

Can you hyperlink it?

With some popular religions slowly dying, there are many other forms sprouting up, such as aliens designed us or all reality being a simulation, and many more. To extend this, the state may even been seen a as religion, because it can be seen as the absolute highest power of rule over its denizens, and worshipped with absolute faith in it. Many people thought with more knowledge and technology all religion would be swept away, but it seems with more knowledge comes more speculation about the unknown. If we accept that humans cannot know everything, will there always be religion?

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736 "...one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence." https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157603176419328 "Citizens of Rationalia." This is a nice article giving criticism to Rationalia. So far there has been a big push-back on the Rationalia form of governing, pointing out that evidence can be manipulated. I feel there is only one system to point out the how this system would be broken over night; the court system of the US. Describing rules based on evidence will lead to subjectivity disguised as evidence because of one's perspective. I believe the intent is to replicate the scientific theory to a system of government, but wasn't that also the intent of the court system? Neil once said that the court's best form of evidence is science's lowest form of evidence, experiencing it yourself. This is because one's experience is subjective and cannot also be repeated or open to interpretation. Designing a government to be like science I believe is not possible. As the article linked above talks about, there is chaos in people's actions. Designing rules based on evidence to manage this chaos is impossible, even modern computers cannot always have an accurate prediction to real world things, let alone humans. Rules can be built to stop 90% of common incidents, but this government would not be too different from the one we have now.

From my understanding (from media, friends, and other alternative news), the guy had seen the girl before. She got very drunk and blacked out and stumbled behind a trash can. Brock sexually assaulted her through groping and finger penetration. He reported that she had been rubbing his back as he was fingering her, but once two bicyclists found him he ran. From this I do think he is guilty and that he knew what he was doing was wrong. But I think 6-months for sexual assault is reasonable since I do not feel it is a convincing malicious assault, closer to a misunderstanding. The behind a trash can does seem off. I also heard after a week of being in jail he has been relieved of 3 months of the total sentence for good time. That does feel ridiculous to serve 3 months for sexual assault because I do feel he knew what he was doing (again, possibly not to the extent). Would love to see a truth about since most of my information has come from mainstream and having a hard time finding counter evidence.

Finding a way to separate good feminists and bad feminists is going by identity politics. I believe you have the assumption that if they are an x-type of feminist then they must believe in one thing and are bad or good (based on your beliefs) versus if they are y-type feminists which they also have a tenant of beliefs which you find bad or good. I think worrying about the identity of the feminist or worrying if someone is a feminist is irrelevant. A person like Anita has bad idea and that is all that she should be recognized for, not being a feminist. A person like Christina Hoff Sommers should be recognized for having good ideas. Yes, they are both feminists and different kind, but by playing identity politics it creates too much stereotyping, which has the potential to make assumptions, mislead, or create labels about the person instead of reading into and judging the ideas themselves. (more concern for who the person is rather than what the ideas are). Basically I think someone being called a feminist is redundant, just good or bad ideas is what matters. That is what the separation should be. I hope I answered your question.

It takes the man's will and say out of the equation; a man has no rights on if an embryo turns into a child or is aborted. This is bad because, as you recognize, if a person chooses to have a child and want to nurture the child, but having this taken away from them because the woman does not want the child, it violates the man's rights to have a child he voluntarily went to creating. Child support means to pay in money to the nurturing family of the child, not necessarily parenting the child themselves. If I understand it, it is when both people consent to sex, they also voluntarily create a child. Which brings us back to violating a man's right to the child he wants but does not get to have if the woman does not want it and aborts. If a man is able to have his right's violated by being denied a child when a child was intended by the consenting sex, it is fair that he is able to deny the nurturing family financial support. This is because if there is a capacity for his rights to be violated, then there should be an equal capacity for the nurturing family to have a lessened security. A man being forced to financially support a child he did not want would also take away his rights. So what we have today a man has all the capacity to have his right's violated but a woman has none. I am saying it needs to be 1 of 3 things. If a woman is pregnant and one of the 2 parents wants the child, the child must be born and supported by both parents. As consenting sex says they must. If a woman is pregnant and one of the 2 parents does not want the child, the child may be aborted or the denying parent is not forced to financially support the child. As to not violate the rights of the parent who does not want the child. Or it is a case that it is good that the man has no say because it is good for the child's security and future. It is the woman's say to be all or none and a man must accept the woman's choice, regardless of his intentions and rights.

In the next line, following the part you quoted me on, I talk about how a woman owns her body. The part of "my argument is..." is to say how that would be equal, but not right. In regards to that, I agree with you. In the final paragraph I summarize my feelings. The part that you quoted was development to the final idea. To summarize it more, I feel a man should not pay child support if he does not want the child. This is because it is hypocritical and bad that a woman can abort a child without the man's consent with no negative implications.

Are you saying this hypocrisy is a prerequisite to the agreement? Men have no say what happens whereas women have complete say? I respect that if people are having sex they must also understand that is how children are made. But why is it men do not have a plan B but women do? What justifies this inequality? Is this agreement part of the consent? I would disagree if it is.

I brought up this idea with a family member, but her conclusion was "that is just not right" with no real argument. Maybe you guys could give this idea more of a test to see if it is right or wrong. If two people have consenting sex, the woman becomes pregnant and the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not, she has the baby and the man likely still pays child support. My argument is, to make it equal, if the woman does not want to have a child but the man does, the woman must have the child. If the woman aborts without his consent, he may press charges. However, does a person have a right to say what they do with their body, despite what the other wants? If the above is true, then it is unfair for the man to have to pay child support when he does not want the child because in both situations it is in the woman's benefit and less of the man's. She gets to have her cake and eat it too, the man gets nothing unless both or neither want to have a child. But if people are having consenting sex, they are also consenting to having a child (with no condom/pill). If this is true, unless both people agreed to get an abortion before hand, neither person after the fact can say they do not want a child. If this is the case, the woman must have the child if the man does and the man must pay child support (or stay with her) if she wants to keep the child. I feel this would also contradict the woman's right to do what she wants with her body after the fact (regret in decision) if she is forced to do something so no longer wants to do and can be avoided. I know this is a bit of a merry-go-round. Because this goes in full circle of hypocrisy, my feelings are that if a man does not want to have the child, he does not pay child support (condom or not). Or the man must pay child support if she wants the child and the woman must have the child and pay support if he wants the child because of consenting sex implication of child making. What do you guys think of this idea? At the moment it seems blatantly one-sided for the woman's benefit but would like to see some holes in it that I may not see.