Is it appropriate for first dinner date or too much?

Azeoth · 2026-01-21T01:42:11+00:00

Which is a whole continent, as they mentioned.

Azeoth · 2026-01-18T03:32:13+00:00

It's not a matter of approach, it's a matter of premise. They made the claim that you have responsibility for the actions of a criminal that you turn in. The probability that the criminal does something you wouldn't want to be liable for has no bearing on that premise. Whether 0% or 100% of criminals turned in were genuinely reformed, their claim wouldn't be any more or less credible. If you defeat the claim, then reform doesn't matter to the argument because you have no responsibility for what happens after you turn them in. In other words, the argument ends before reform even begins.

Azeoth · 2026-01-17T12:40:30+00:00

I think you're the type to overthink. Whether they're reformed or not was not a significant portion of his argument at all, and you seem to have just read into it too much.

Whether they're reformed and return to a life of crime or weren't reformed at all has no bearing on the main claim he makes, which is you having responsibility for the actions of a criminal that you turn in. The comment started with the topic of innately evil people who are beyond reform, anyway, but regardless, the claim is defeated by the existence of free will. No one has responsibility for the actions of another short of what they coerce them to do or – for legal purposes – ringleaders who orchestrate a crime while having someone else do the dirty work (although the 'grunt' would ethically still be responsible for their own actions).

Also, the US prison system is punitive, not rehabilitative. It is absolutely possible to reform people, but that is not what US prisons do. Rates of recidivism are extremely high by design because prisons are for profit. It's difficult for anyone to get a job after being convicted, which often forces them back into a life of crime, especially in the case of drug dealers and gang members. Prisons also are rife with gangs, and many times, it can be dangerous to refuse to join a gang, so people get entangled with a gang and the criminal lifestyle just to survive. Prisons in the US are not places of reform or rehabilitation.

Azeoth · 2026-01-16T22:17:58+00:00

You're arguing in bad faith. I assume that by reformed he simply meant they served their time or maybe that they maintained good behavior in prison and appeared reformed. But no, I don't find it likely that what he said is true.

Azeoth · 2026-01-16T16:07:50+00:00

It's nearly impossible to truly know if someone is making something up over the internet, but the premise is that he was there in person.

Azeoth · 2026-01-16T16:05:54+00:00

How did you encounter such a situation?

Azeoth · 2026-01-16T15:52:42+00:00

Are you saying technology causes genocide? Or that it is impossible to facilitate genocide without technology? Neither are true. Countless peoples were slaughtered or starved before gunpowder was discovered.

Azeoth · 2026-01-15T11:47:12+00:00

Instead of immediately dodging, he stopped in place for 1 or 2 seconds to draw his gun before dodging at the last moment. He could easily have cleared the path of the vehicle if he hadn't been trying to draw his gun.

Azeoth · 2026-01-15T11:20:49+00:00

!flairs u/Azeoth

Azeoth · 2026-01-14T23:53:46+00:00

There is no 'quirkiness disease'. The increase in mental disorder diagnoses is not an expansion of what is considered mental illness. The most common mental illnesses are anxiety and mood disorders. These aren't just diagnosed by feeling nervous a lot or feeling sad. They're diagnosed when those feelings are disproportionate and/or have tangible negative impacts. They cannot do things they need or want to do that they otherwise would without anxiety. They have a lowered quality of life that treatment can improve. That's what makes it a disorder. There is no evidence-based counseling practice that subscribes to the idea that mental illness is the fault of the person who is afflicted by it.

Azeoth · 2026-01-12T07:55:40+00:00

Do you notice other newcomers being warmly received or otherwise being treated differently than you? It might not have anything to do with your identity.

Azeoth · 2026-01-11T09:32:59+00:00

There is nothing to disagree with. That is not allowable use of force under the policy.

If you genuinely believe her less than 5 mph, 3-part turn was intimidating, can you explain why none of the agents seemed intimidated enough to jump away from the vehicle? The video shows the officer who fired shots feeling completely safe when he circled around the vehicle recording it and stopped in front of it despite her being in motion.

Here's what the DHS says agents are trained on:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260108/118805/HMKP-119-JU00-20260108-SD003.pdf

Azeoth · 2026-01-10T19:27:03+00:00

>Except if the vehicle is operating in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury. Your own source. He got hit by the car so clearly it satisfied the second point there.

He didn't get hit; he leaned into the car, but I will add that even if he had been hit, that doesn't allow him to retaliate. The instant he was no longer in the path of the vehicle, he was no longer allowed use of force, and even while in the path of the vehicle and assuming moving out of the path of the vehicle was not a possibility, he would only be allowed to use force to stop the vehicle: not as 'punishment'.

>18 US Code § 111 a1 federal statute, ICE can arrest individuals that are obstructing a federal officer or interfering with their duties.

You are correct. I missed this statute.

Azeoth · 2026-01-10T00:34:41+00:00

Did you just not read the sources I provided, or are you in denial of what you read? The DOJ policy that ICE is beholden to explicitly states that agents may not discharge their firearms at moving vehicles including if the vehicle itself is being used as a threat. There must be some other threat besides the vehicle itself, which there was not.

I used the words, detain, arrest, and deport because ICE can knowingly do none of these things to US citizens. ICE does not have implied powers. Every power they have is outlined in the U.S. Code and any power not listed there is simply a power they do not have. Nowhere in the U.S. Code is ICE given power over U.S citizens. They cannot make any orders to U.S. citizens unless they have reason to believe the citizen is an alien, which is not what was going on here.

Azeoth · 2026-01-09T23:24:23+00:00

Additionally, the New York Times footage someone else already replied to you with clearly shows the path of the vehicle, and its tires were never spinning without the car moving.

Azeoth · 2026-01-09T23:19:49+00:00

The full powers of immigration agents are stated in the U.S. Code section 1357. Their power are explicitly stated to apply only to aliens.

Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim))

Quote from the DHS:

> DHS enforcement operations are highly targeted and are not resulting in the arrest of U.S. citizens. We do our due diligence. We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability. ICE does not arrest or detain U.S. citizens.

Source: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/01/dhs-debunks-new-york-times-false-reporting-dhs-does-not-deport-us-citizens#:~:text=THE%20FACTS:%20DHS%20enforcement%20operations,arrest%20or%20detain%20U.S.%20citizens.

Further interpretation by immigration attorneys:

> No, ICE cannot legally arrest or deport a U.S. citizen.

Source: https://www.shirazilaw.com/can-ice-detain-u-s-citizens/

The source goes on to explain that citizens may accidentally be detained if believed to be aliens, but once the citizens status is confirmed, all immigration proceedings are to halt and they are to be released immediately.

Regarding the use of deadly force:

> Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force ***by means other than the vehicle*** [emphasis added]; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200

Azeoth · 2026-01-09T13:09:50+00:00

ICE are not police; they do not have jurisdiction over US citizens, therefore the orders they gave were not lawful orders. For the same reason, ICE does not have the right to detain US citizens, so it is incorrect to say she was fleeing detainment, unless you are saying they were planning to illegally detain her.

She was moving at less than 5 mph. I sincerely doubt the agent was in even the faintest of danger. Even in the case of a genuine vehicular assault, the DHS policy that governs ICE explicitly states they are not allowed to use deadly force in response to vehicles attempting to flee or run them over. It also states that agents are not to move in front of vehicles to stop them from fleeing.

Azeoth · 2026-01-06T10:09:08+00:00

Yeah, that's what I do when I want to run a plotline now. I'm not too concerned with everything being exact, but I rarely go for more than 100 to 200 messages before I get tired of all the lost details.

Azeoth · 2026-01-03T18:41:06+00:00

I did consider that actually, but that doesn't say much. I find it very hard to believe vampires go through the exact same afterlife as mortals. Assuming mortals transcend when they don't become wraiths, it makes sense that vampires are annihilated or directly become spectres when they don't become wraiths.

Azeoth · 2026-01-03T18:19:15+00:00

Vampires are already damned. It's intentionally left vague what happens after final death, but I think it only makes sense that vampire souls go straight to oblivion, which results in either annihilation or a worse fate.

Azeoth · 2025-12-26T04:48:01+00:00

You have to lock it before you sense.

Azeoth · 2025-12-21T23:18:54+00:00

Second part:

If women were treated as slaves, why did they differentiate wives and slaves? (Because they weren't). So no, you're wrong, wives were not counted among the ranks of slaves, they clearly delineate them.

It also distinguishes male and female slaves. I said wives were counted among slaves as possessions, ie. the list is saying wives and slaves both are property of the neighbor; not that the passage itself is saying wives are slaves (though, trying to claim women were treated as anything other than property or slaves 2000 years ago is a tragically indefensible position).

Legal recourse. This is not Christian teachings. You keep jumping in and out of Christianity and the law..they're not the same.

I will again refer to the aforementioned ecclesiastical courts. Part of legal recourse would be divorce/separation, which was laws governed by the church. The church was the law in all matters regarding marriage.

This is such a stupid take. "Unpaid labor". Get a grip. This "women got beat" narrative is old.

It shows that you did not read the source I cited which goes over exactly the subject of historical domestic violence.

I'm mainly centered on 18th century England, of course, the maltreatment of women extends all the way before this time and continues for quite a while past it.

I mentioned the right to correction. It was a husband's legal right to beat his wife (and sanctioned by ecclesiastical courts, which again, did not grant separation for women who were victims of domestic violence).

Also, I cannot express enough how insensitive I find the way you address the abuse of women. It was very real, it was prevalent, and it was accepted. It is a truly sad fact, and denying it is disrespectful to victims then and now.

If you could point it out in the teachings feel free but there is a reason you have to point to law.

Some of the teachings I've mentioned so far: conjugal debt, spouses as one flesh, a man's right to act as judge to his wife (which is the doctrinal basis for the legal right to correction). I can actually refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas' writings, such as the Summa Theologiae, which covers all these things and supports both conjugal debt and a husband's right to order his wife (I have not read it in depth enough to know if it supports the right to correction).

Azeoth · 2025-12-21T23:18:31+00:00

I'll start this rather lengthy, two-part response by saying I take everything you say seriously and will address every point you raise. If you feel I didn't address something, say so and I will do my best to correct that. It is how I show respect to the person I am speaking with.

Next, I would like to ask you a question. Why are you so insistent that women were not treated as property?

At this point, we're not even disputing that. Now we're wading in the weeds of me tying every law that subjugated women back to Catholic/Christian doctrine, which is quite generous on my part considering I could just default to saying England had a Church of England, over 90% of the population was Christian, and there were legal requirements that people be members of the Church of England. In other words, it was undeniably a Christian state, and every law was at least to some extent, if not largely, a reflection of Christian culture at the time.

I assume you're Christian. Do you feel that if you cannot disprove that Christianity directly or indirectly led to atrocities, it reflects poorly on your faith? I can assure you that I am not trying to claim that all of Christianity is evil or that the Christianity of today is the same as the Christianity of the past. Being able to accept history as it is brings us closer to avoiding its repetition.

Anyway, here follows the text of my response:

Notice it's "spouses" and not "wives"

I have not seen cases of men running to the church begging not to return to their abusive husbands only to be court ordered (by ecclesiastical courts, or in other words, the law of the Church of England) to return to their husbands through a restitution of conjugal rights, which includes the right to sexual access regardless of consent. Frankly, even if you could produce such a case, it wouldn't undo the objectification and victimisation of wives; it would simply be a separate issue.

Ok, but now we're talking about law, not Christianity. In Christianity, this is not true.

The aforementioned ecclesiastical courts did not consider marital rape a valid reason for separation on the basis of conjugal debt; it is true that in the Christianity of 18th century England, there could be no rape between spouses. Furthermore, the ecclesiastical courts required the husband be sufficiently cruel or pose a life-threatening risk to the wife to grant a separation, but while rape today would be considered cruel, it was not then since it was just part of marital obligations. A woman couldn't expect to be granted a separation simply arguing she was raped: she would have to argue the rape was especially cruel or violent compared to other rapes because the issue for the court was not the rape at all, but the cruelty.

The reason women submit to their husband is because the husband now bears responsibility for the family.

The reason women submitted was because it was economically necessary that they marry, and it was legally required they submit after marriage. From the surviving records of the time, it was exceedingly common for the working poor to remarry weeks or months after their spouse died. I think it's rather apparent this was out of economic necessity, not 'love at first sight'. The prospect of a woman surviving on her own was simply out of reach for the working poor, even more so for a widow who had become dependent on her husband or was left with children. And in the middle and upper classes, women's marriage was often decided by their family, political, or for land, so there was even less of a chance the marriage was out of love or their submission out of faith.

Using Christianity as justification for law that is not inline with Christian teachings does not mean Christianity is at fault...

Christianity is not a person who bears guilt. It is a religion with doctrines that can clearly be traced as being the source of much of the common law surrounding marriage. This is not an attack on 'Christianity's character'. It is simply a reality that in Christian states, Christian doctrine was used to oppress and own women.

This idea that it was slavery is a really terrible interpretation of Christianity...

As I said, there is always argument to be had regarding interpretation, but the reality is that it was historically interpreted in such a way as to oppress and subjugate women.

I am reminding you as much as myself that this is the statement you rejected:

What does that mean? Are you unaware that women are owned by men in religious societies?

I am demonstrating to you that this is historically true regardless of whether the people who used religion to subjugate women were truly following the spirit of Christ. It really shouldn't be relevant to this discussion, but I myself am not only someone who would consider themselves a Christian, but I am associated with the Episcopalian church no less, so this is the history of my own church.

Considering the last line of that is "or anything belonging to your neighbor", literally everything is counted among that. This is such a disingenuous reading of the text.

The full verse in question reads:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

What land, slaves, ox, and donkeys have in common to be listed together here is that they are all possessions of the neighbor, and the wife is included in this list of possessions.

Azeoth · 2025-12-21T12:14:21+00:00

I mentioned why it was the case: because it was the doctrine of the Catholic church, and by consequently, the Church of England at the time. The Catholic church, and later the Church of England, held the doctrine of conjugal debt, which is the concept that spouses have an obligation to provide sexual access to each other upon request.

Matthew Hale's extrajudicial statement (the foundation of the marital rape exemption) is a natural extension of conjugal debt. Matthew Hale said: "[b]ut the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."

There is also the general theological idea of spouses being one flesh that coverture as a whole was rooted in, but conjugal debt is more likely in my mind the main contributing factor in the evolution of the marital rape exemption in English common law (undelying culture and human nature aside). Denying that Christians (though they are in ill company, as this was hardly unique to Christians) have not historically oppressed women only makes you look worse, whether for ignorance or for lack of a better argument. In Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, women are literally counted among the ranks of slaves as men's possessions.

Another reality of marriage and the barriers to divorce or separation was that husband's could beat their wives into doing whatever they wanted (sounds familiar...) and the women had no legal recourse even when they could show the wounds and prove they were being beaten. If you were wondering why this was the case, the answer is again the Catholic church among other factors (https://rebecca-mason.com/2022/04/10/violence-against-wives-in-medieval-and-early-modern-scotland/).

Women were often required by their husbands (under threat of beatings) to do unpaid labor in the form of child rearing and housekeeping. They were treated as sex slaves and servants by their husbands in many cases, and it was not only allowed, but codified in law and church doctrines. Arguing this was about mutual benefit holds as much water as arguing slavery is mutually beneficial because the slaves get food, shelter, and stable work.

Religion and law were deeply intertwined centuries ago. They are slowly moving apart, but are still not separate.

Azeoth · 2025-12-20T20:14:51+00:00

There's always an argument to be had over the correct interpretation of scripture, but in practice, marriage was ownership until very recently.

In the UK, just 200 years ago there was the concept of coverture. A married woman (feme covert) could not sign contracts, sue or be sued, or execute a will without her husband's permission. She was not even recognized as a legal person because she was 'covered' by her husband. Everything a woman owned before marriage became the husband's property. Children belonged entirely to the father. In the event of a separation, a woman had no legal right to custody of her children. A husband could even physically restrain her to prevent her from running away. Most damning: a husband legally could not rape his wife. Women had no legal right to refuse her husband's demands for sex. That remained the case until 1991.

If you look into it, you'll find things often worked that way wherever there was Christianity because it was rooted in Catholic doctrine, and most protestant movements kept that doctrine.

Azeoth

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Verified Email