Basman

Case 1 is a classic. It's the AK47 of abortion debates. In relation to case 2, in countries where abortions are accessible, fetuses with down syndrome and the like are almost always eliminated. There is not much difference inherently between aborting a gay-babe and downey besides material consequences for the parents life, the latter being of significant consequence in terms of care and the type of relationship you have with the child. A downey will probably die before you do as a parent and requires life long care. Raising a gay-babe is comparatively inconsequential. If the gayness of one's babe does have consequences for the quality of life of the parents and the child then those consequences are largely cultural, something that is not an issue for western cultures. It would be something else if the context was a middle-eastern country as you could argue a gay-babe as well as the parents would live a worse life due to prejudice. In relation to case 3, I don't disagree with abortion being a form of elimination of life, I just don't think it is significant or equivalent to killing a person that would justify calling it "murder". A fetus is just the gestation of life. After a certain point though during pregnancy, abortion becomes too hard to stomach for most people I think as you kill something that very much looks like a human baby.

I'm personally very happy that I'm not dependent on any drugs, including caffeine. It doesn't even occur to me as an option. That's a good link by the way. It has a timeline for what you may experience when quitting and how to treat marijuana addiction.

Labor shills can finally sleep.

Are these two ideas necessarily incompatible, the notion that populism is due to "democratic decline" versus capitalist corruption undermining the ability for common people to meaningfully participate in society and therefor eroding trust in institutions (did I get that right?)? I can see this critique of capitalism being in fact complimentary to Vexlers commentary and you could critique him for not acknowledging this dimension enough. I guess this would be an ideological fork in the road between your ideas and Vexlers assuming he believes in capitalism. I don't see that you disagree on the diagnosis necessarily but perhaps more on the solution.

You guys are being hyper logical. It is a ritual that solidifies the commitment. It is about how it makes you feel. The point is that the relationship is experienced as more actual once you're married with a social dimension to boot. What is the point of a funeral if the person is already dead? Just chuck grandma's corpse in the compost heap. Of course, there are risks which is why you have to be very selective with who you marry. A bad marriage could ruin your life. I've know someone who literally lost their hair due to stress over a divorce war (kids caught in the crossfire).

Having kids today is largely done for intrinsic reasons since kids are no longer a financial asset compared to before, so you have to be very honest with yourself if kids are for you as they are a sheer burden materially. Married men with kids are slightly more happy than childless married man according to the latter article in my previous, but there is probably some bias there considering they most likely wanted to and chose to have kids. Married men with kids are the happiest and unmarried men with no kids are the unhappiest accordingly. It is a generalization that getting married and having kids will make you happier but you probably need a very rich and meaningful life to beat intimate family connections in terms of happiness, one where a family would be incompatible. That is not most people probably. Or perhaps your just built different where family makes no sense. I have an autistic relative who would not have had kids in hindsight because they live so much in their own little world which they prefer to the bustle of family life.

Could you elaborate on your criticism? What about his political theory or philosophy do you think is bad?

Men tend to have fewer resources for intimacy and emotional connection than women outside of romantic relationships and generally benefit more from them compared to women. Married men are on average twice as happy as unmarried men https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/closer-encounters/202501/men-need-romantic-relationships-more-than-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey I think men are by nature more picky about committing to a relationship so I think it is quiet natural for guys to ask these kind of questions. It is kind of the equivalent of when women say there no good men anymore. It more so a matter of mindset toward the challenge of dating or just an expression of exasperation rather than something objectively wrong with the environment necessarily in my opinion.

Without security guarantees there are no concessions to be made. Russia doesn't respect agreements. Only when they hit a brick wall will they be halted. It is really Europe that is being unrealistic about this situation, not Ukraine. If Europe wants to stabilize the region they need to be willing to commit to the war with flesh and blood. Europe is currently enjoying a situation where they have to do relatively little to not be effected too much. One of the possible consequences if Ukraine can't get their security guarantees is nukes, and the proliferation of nukes isn't exactly ideal.

There's something much more actual about having to negotiate the weather, nature and your body for your daily labor. Nowadays, you just drive to work, the weather is irrelevant, you show up on a rotor and kind of plug into being productive like a machine. It is almost surreal. We've lost that essence of humanity in the modern age I think, for better and for worse. We don't have to feel anymore to survive. In fact, it might be better that you don't. That would make it much easier to put up with the seemingly senseless grind.

We are better at reporting misery today than before, so it is not completely clear if we are actually more miserable now than before. Go back far enough and depression wasn't even a concept that existed like it those today. Another notion is that we are more materially secure so we have more time to fret over how we feel. Less war and starvation. Another factor is that we've eliminated a lot of naturally occurring socialization for the sake of convenience and productivity. For example, Car-centric urban design atomizes communities as you step in and out of your car when going from A to B instead of traveling the road by horse for instance. Car centered urban design is self-reinforcing as the layout changes to adapt to the use of cars (bigger roads, parking lots, more distance between amenities, etc.) which further contributes to the atomization. Or another example, we don't have to barter over goods anymore and trading has been depersonalized. You just buy from X faceless company and the sale is completely scripted ("hi. That'll be 69.99. Goodbye."). Nowadays, you don't even have to leave your house to live your life. You can work from home and you have all the entertainment you could ever want via the internet.

The argument is that women are too picky comparatively and therefor have less option effectively. It equates optionality with availability but those two are completely different things. Having higher standards doesn't mean your availability is actually lower. The argument doesn't recognize either how much more leverage you have with greater availability as well. A conventionally attractive women could ask random strangers for sex and most likely be successful at it while a conventionally attractive man would most likely not be remotely as successful in getting laid. I don't think women appreciate the leverage they quiet have but don't seem to use proactively because they desire a passive experience, and conversely don't seem to appreciate how sex starved men tend to be. Commenting on male availability as a women can easily become a "let them eat cake" situation.

No. People are not fungible like that. It's an overly reductive way of thinking. And this kind of theorizing is just unconstructive and at worst damaging to guys who are struggling. It is almost trolling.

Because all women never actually love the person they are with. All this theorizing just comes off as contrivance and cowardice. Reducing human beings to just an economy as if you never even have to try if your just handsome enough. Some people have certain advantages for sure but but that is not a good reason to not even try. It is not the case at all that mating has been monopolized by a minority of chads or that it is going to. That is ridiculous. A lot of guys tend to see mating only through the male perspective and assume that women are as obsessed with looks as they are. It's a lot of projection, as overused that word is.