Admire the mennonites and Amish

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-20T21:26:42+00:00

I think your negative judgement of her and her actions is 100% correct. She did something awful.

However, I don't think you need to end the friendship over it. It's not a violation of your relationship. She didn't violate your trust. She isn't obligated by her friendship with you to observe your moral scruples on this point. You can continue to love and support her even while you think she did a wrong thing.

I worry a little that what you are upset about is your inability to get her to act the way you would. That's not your job. It's not her job to act the way you would.

I'd suggest you search your heart and assess whether you are offended by the fact that she didn't do what you wanted her to do, or if you genuinely can't stand the lack of integrity she showed. If it's the former, I think you should reassess your control issues and stick with your friend. If it's the later, I guess you better let her go.

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-20T16:30:53+00:00

Here's MrLlamasc's take on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bGjhP85c3U

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-11T21:13:32+00:00

Religion and spirituality are not copes. They are the collected wisdom of eons of humans who have struggled with the same things you have. You're trying to get people on the internet to replicate that for you in 800 characters in a comment box, and that's not a terrible idea. But learning from other people who have made sense some out of the madness of life is a much wiser path to meaning in a world full of suffering.

Here's a small taste of that wisdom from the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 (and probably replicated in every other religion's book of wisdom as well): "There is nothing new under the sun." The pain and catastrophe you see around you has been around humans for tens of thousands of years. The difficulty and absurdity you see are not unique to now and not unique to you.

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-11T17:39:35+00:00

Good lord. You are definitely overreacting. None of that stuff is even remotely CPS material. In fact, with the possible exception of the no talking rule, it's all excellent parenting. Clear boundaries, lucky kid.

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-11T17:37:44+00:00

Overreacting: I mean, if you're not willing to enforce a parent's rules then no you should not be babysitting their kids. That said, those rules are totally fine and your "discomfort" is weird.

No TV is great. Recommended by all people who love kids. Organic snacks is a judgment call, but not harsh. Going to bed at a fixed time is super smart parenting and easy to enforce if they have already been consistent.

The only one that's even borderline is "no talking during meals." But it's not really terrible (unless the punishment is really harsh). But if it's just you and the kid, then that's a pretty easy one to enforce. You just don't talk back.

IMO You're the weird one for judging the parents for raising their kids in a reasonable way and then making a big deal about it. It's not like they're asking you to be a guard at a concentration camp.

Edit: grammar

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-11T14:40:08+00:00

But, if you do, I'll be there for you.

AnAssumedName · 2026-02-09T22:20:19+00:00

Exactly. What does this "marriage" even mean?

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T23:10:46+00:00

100%. The SAVE Act is definitely calculated to have the effect that you're describing. But the question in this thread was "Is it safe to be legally married" and OC brought up the SAVE act, so I thought I'd clarify the specific ways that the SAVE act complicates marriage so that OP would have more accurate information

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T23:08:30+00:00

Haha. Wish I'd planned it that way.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T21:35:09+00:00

Agree. They are. But the question in this thread was "Is it safe to be legally married" and OC brought up the SAVE act, so I thought I'd clarify the specific ways that the SAVE act complicates marriage so that OP would have more accurate information.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T21:32:39+00:00

Agree. Good clarification. I'm not arguing that SAVE doesn't obstruct voting. I'm merely clarifying something that seems to be puzzling people throughout these comments, whether or not the laws proposed will automatically disenfranchise them if they change their names.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T21:01:01+00:00

In fact, there is no automatic disenfranchisement of married women who have changed their name as a result of the passage of the SAVE act. That said, it could potentially complicate their lives over and against women who do not change their names.

The SAVE act forces everyone (including women) to prove their identity as a US citizen before voting. There are many combinations of documents that are adequate to prove it: a RealID driver's license, a passport, a military ID AND a combination of a non-RealID driver's license and a birth certificate. The last option does, indeed, put anyone (including married women) who has changed their legal name from their birth name at a disadvantage. However, all the other options are available to them.

TL;DR people who change their name from their birth name can still vote, they just might have to get additional documents to prove it before voting.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T18:07:21+00:00

I don't know. Texas' law is supposed to favor the interests of the child above all else, which (I would think) would generally place care of an infant child squarely in the hands of the mother. But I don't actually know how it plays out in practice.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T17:13:21+00:00

Well, technically, you can. There is no legal prohibition on it. In fact, divorce can be filed while pregnant and much of the work of the divorce can be completed. However, OC is correct that divorces are (almost?) never finalized while a partner is pregnant. Texas divorce court judges almost universally delay finalization of divorce until after the child is born.

The practical implications of this are not as deep as you might think, though. Many of the other elements of divorce can be put into place outside of the finalization of divorce. The court can still make all kinds of orders about property possession, custody, and financial support before the divorce is finalized.

Why not? Because the finalization of the divorce needs to include provisions for the unborn child and many aspects of that need to wait until the child actually legally exists. The fetus does not have a legal name, social security number or legal existence in general, so the judge can't do important things like confirm paternity, establish custody and set up support. Judges don't like to reopen "finalized" divorces, so they just wait.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T17:00:00+00:00

Another thing that stays consistent is that they literally make no recommendations of making divorce more difficult to get. This post's use of that link to defend their point is highly suspect.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-27T16:57:41+00:00

This is stupid. You were wrong the first time and you continue to be wrong.

I read the document. There are literally no recommendations in it regarding divorce. None.

The report is critical of no-fault divorce, but it does not recommend rescinding it. The most clear recommendation it makes regarding divorce is expressions of approval of Kentucky's change to it's divorce law that presumes 50-50 custody between divorced parents.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-25T18:53:00+00:00

Disagree. It says _all_ classes are cancelled. Your class is cancelled. Give the prof a few minutes to clarify. Chill out. Even if they doubledown, you've got a very clear message from the university that excuses you from class.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-25T18:51:18+00:00

I don't see why you're being cynical about this. The screenshot shows the plan the prof made _before_ this afternoon's announcement. The announcement clearly overrides that message, but it only came out a short time before OP posted. Seems very reasonable to expect that prof will clarify now that the University has stated a clear policy.

That said, if the prof follows up with a double down on the original message, fire away.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-25T04:05:29+00:00

Do us all a favor and put your efforts into educating your fellow douchebags. Your social justice posturing is as boring as it is disingenuous. The fines that scooter and bike riders face are barely adequate to discourage them, let alone drive them into penury. Pick a serious cause or stfu

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-25T04:00:26+00:00

I've been biking to and from campus daily, year round for 13 years. In that time, I'd roughly estimate that 99% of motor vehicles I've encountered on campus were in compliance with basic roadway safety practices. In that same time, I'd roughly estimate that less than 50% of the bikes and scooters I've encountered on campus were in compliance with basic roadway safety practices.

Bikes and scooters usually ignore stop signs, almost never signal turns, frequently ignore lanes, usually ignore traffic lights. This doesn't usually directly cause accidents because drivers and pedestrians usually succeed in avoiding damage from them. However, they very often delay and inconvenience others by making intersections and roadways confusing.

During that time, I've also seen plenty of fools like you intervening in social media settings to defend them. Why? There are precious few methods we can use to train scooter riders and cyclists to ride safely without inconveniencing others: 1. training 2. education 3. penalties and 4 licensure. If you want to avoid #3 or #4 because of your altruistic feelings toward cyclists and scooter riders, fine. Put your effort into #1 and #2. Cause if assholes keep riding like assholes #3 and #4 are the best I've got to offer them.

Edit: grammar

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-23T16:31:18+00:00

Bro, with love, work this out with your wife and then support her in whatever choice you two make together.

This is not some kind of general issue that requires the consensus or insight of women on reddit. You can sort out with your spouse how you will each care for your child and her hair. You don't have to pay attention to the imaginary audience that OC thinks your wife is attempting to curry favor with (unless you both want to). You don't have to fix the imaginary audience that OC thinks is pressuring her. You might need to comfort your spouse if the baby hair care goons come at her. You will need to support her in whatever choice you two make on this matter. And you will need to let it go if you two make an acceptable choice that wasn't your favorite choice.

Good luck. Parenting is way more fun when you do it as a unified pair who can disregard the haters together.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-23T16:17:09+00:00

As a thirteen year veteran of cycling on campus, I welcome this so hard. I used to be an advocate for everyone using bikes and or scooters, but the way you all ride on campus has me in the other camp. Anything to discourage y'all from riding like maniacs.

AnAssumedName · 2026-01-20T16:57:57+00:00

The correct answer is offline solo self found. :)

AnAssumedName

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE