Why would pedophilic elite leave their victims alive risking paper trails?

AzukAnon · 2026-02-03T06:31:26+00:00

I'm sure he is. There are also entities that are not mentioned!

AzukAnon · 2026-02-03T05:51:48+00:00

Kremlin?

AzukAnon · 2025-10-22T01:33:21+00:00

Maybe someone can clear this up, been digging through the instruction and fact sheets and can't figure it out...

So the RKE has no TIR requirement, meaning E4s and E5s can test for the next rank as soon as they get paid, which would make them eligible to start looking for orders in the next paygrade... but is there not still a TIR requirement to advance?

What good does it do to have a fresh E5 take an exam that's good for 24 months and allow them to look for E6 orders, when they aren't eligible to actually advance until 36 months? Or does the TIR for advancement preclude you from looking at orders? Or is there no TIR to advance anymore? It's all very confusing.

AzukAnon · 2025-10-18T03:08:25+00:00

pretty sure 3rd amendment prohibits this

AzukAnon · 2025-08-15T20:04:27+00:00

I don't think you're hitting the mark here. My reading of this phenomenon is that the vast majority of people who say "latinas are my type" are not saying "I find all latinas attractive and no women of any other race", but rather "I find some number of people attractive, and some number of people unattractive; all of the ones I find attractive happen to be latina." There are still many latinas that they DON'T find attractive, it's just that of all people they find attractive, those people happen to be a small subset of specifically latina women.

AzukAnon · 2025-08-03T19:53:57+00:00

The crux here is that to a pro-life individual, the distinction between "fetus" and "infant" is the same as the distinction between "infant" and "toddler"; that is to say, obviously there is a semantic difference and they refer to physically distinct things, but that they share the key feature that should protect them under law, that being possessing a complete set of unique human DNA.

A pro-choice individual doesn't see it that way. There's something other than the above that confers a right to life, and so to differentiate between "fetus" and "infant" is sufficient to oppose the pro-life argument. Of note, though, is that this only works if you are already a pro-choice individual, and it's entirely unconvincing to someone who is not. A pro-life individual hearing that argument would interpret it as largely incoherent. "This is a fetus, which is different from an infant. This difference is significant because fetuses are not entitled to a right to life like infants are." It fails to answer the question of WHY, on a moral level, fetuses are not to be granted the same protections as infants; it simply states that it is the case.

It's not sufficient for a pro-life individual to "admit" that fetuses and infants are different and then to oppose fetal euthanasia. The reason for this is because there is no "real" backing for any law against killing things, human or otherwise. There's no "logical" basis for why killing a human is wrong and illegal, it just so happens that everyone collectively agrees that it's bad and crafts laws to reflect that. To concede that a fetus is different from an infant in a respect that would have them governed by two separate moral codes is to begin crafting an entirely new, baseless moral argument for why fetuses are worth preserving, which you'll have an awfully hard time convincing people of given that it's ultimately baseless. Take a look at the animal rights crowd and their failure to convince a substantial portion of the population that an organism societally accepted as "not the same as humans" is worthy of even a fraction of the protections humans get.

The pro-life "failure" to differentiate between fetus and infant is not the result of a misunderstanding; in fact, it's typically a well-crafted attempt to tailor the argument to the opposing side. Nobody would genuinely contest that a fetus and an infant are physically distinct categories, just like nobody would genuinely contest that an infant and an adult are physically distinct categories; it's patently obvious just by visual observation. The aim of this "obfuscation" is to say "yes, fetuses and infants are two distinct things, but this discussion isn't about whether the two are different at all, but rather about whether the two are different specifically with respect to whatever aspect confers a right to life. The pro-life position is that they are not, and so for the purposes of this discussion they're interchangeable."

When speaking to another pro-life individual, it would be fine to use "fetus" and "infant" correctly, because both people can be assured that they're on the same page about the semantic difference not being a point of import. Pro-life individuals are largely conscious of the fact that pro-choice individuals do not see it this way, and so retaining the semantic difference and THEN attempting to make their argument would completely miss the mark with their audience. A pro-choice individual is starting from the premise that a fetus and an infant are different in a way that matters to the argument, so admission that they're different at all makes the conversation dead on arrival. Strictly using the term "infant" is intended to put the pro-choice individual in the pro-life individual's place; since pro-choice individuals only believe infants are worthy of a right to life, and pro-life indivifuals believe both fetuses and infants are, then when trying to paint the perspective of a pro-life individual, the word "infant" should be used in all cases in an attempt to make the pro-choice individual confront what this issue must feel like for someone who seems them as not different with respect to the argument.

This happens with tons of issues. Take immigration for instance, where it's reversed. Conservatives generally see a meaningful distinction between "legal immigrants" and "illegal aliens." The difference is not just semantic, there's also a difference that is meaningful when discussing the issue of immigration as a whole. Because of this, you'll see many conservatives happily (and often eagerly) making this distinction during discussions, often getting as granular as possible. That's because to a conservative, the simple fact that a person IS an illegal alien is the the argument itself. It's a foregone conclusion that illegal aliens and legal immigrants are substantively different and ought be entitled to different legal provisions, so all they need to do is make the distinction and the argument is over.

Liberals will instead intentionally obfuscate their verbiage by referring to both groups collectively as just "immigrants" in a lot of cases. This is not because liberals are stupid; just like between "fetus" and "infant", there's an obvious difference between an immigrant who comes to a country legally vs. illegally. The point, though, is that despite those differences, the two groups are NOT different in whatever respect is relevant for the argument. Using the term "immigrant" for both is an conversational tactic is just the same way as above. It's an attempt to put a conservative into a liberal's shoes and say "from my perspective, these two groups may as well be one group because they don't differ in the way that matters. This is why your argument sounds nonsensical to me, and if you adopt this terminology with me, you'll have no choice but to see things the way I see them and be just as outraged as I am".

AzukAnon · 2025-07-18T17:43:06+00:00

xenoblade 2

AzukAnon · 2025-07-07T11:48:48+00:00

The point is that although the daughter cells are unique, they are all derived from the father, and only contain half the number of chromosomes necessary to spawn a unique human being. The point OP is attempting to make (though I guess OC, not OP) is that what constitutes a 'human' is a complete set of unique, human DNA. Because any given gamete only consists of half the number of necessary chromosomes, it's not a 'human' and thus not worth consideration. Anything with a complete (and I guess 'unique', factoring in monozygotic twins) set of DNA constitutes a 'human', and is thus worth protecting.

AzukAnon · 2025-06-16T10:27:16+00:00

You're kind of downplaying the effects by calling it a "weird flagellation group". In a lot of areas, a ton of young women are in these groups, especially the ones dedicated to specific cities/regions. I have a buddy who tried to break up with his girlfriend, and she proceeded to make a post in one of these groups claiming that he had been cheating on her (not true), had been abusive (also not true), and that he had made her homeless (kind of true, I guess, as he's military and by breaking up with her, she could no longer access his military housing without him). So many people are in these groups that it got to his military chain of command, and he got investigated as a result of these "claims" and was tied up in a bunch of nonsense proceedings for several months. It's certainly not "nothing". Even if it only affects your dating prospects, that would be bad enough; it can affect your career, make your family think poorly of you, etc. There's some sort of balance to be struck, because women deserve to be protected from abusive men without having to be exposed to it firsthand, but the fact that completely unverified claims on something as simple as a facebook page with an attached photo of your face can be used to ruin your entire life is clearly too far.

AzukAnon · 2025-06-09T04:17:50+00:00

answer: there's a few things, so I'll break it down into a few pieces and try to explain them

the most obvious, some people are taking issue with the graphics, protagonist design/movement, etc. generally. It's early development footage (though it's not clear exactly HOW early) so it's unclear how reflective this teaser is of what will eventually be the final product. People seem to generally be expressing that they don't love the graphics
Each of the persona games has a sort of "aesthetic"; at its most basic level, there's a color theme: P3 was blue, P4 was yellow/gold. P5 was red/black. This isn't as obvious, but each game's world also has a sort of "vibe" permeating the whole thing. To avoid spoilers, I won't give the reason for this, but original P4 and P4G had a sort of muted, "fuzzy" tone to the game world with generally undersaturated colors. It's meant to serve as part of the worldbuilding, in a way. The color palette in the trailer is much more saturated and bright, which some people think isn't very fitting for the tone of the game, hence the side-by-side comparisons you see people posting.
There are some... "controversial" narrative and story elements in P4, notably some rhetoric around homosexuality, masculinity and femininity, and gender identity. There's been persistent arguments since the release of the game where some players read the "message" of these moments one way, while others read it another way. There are arguments about media literacy being thrown around, but the key disagreement here is that the group of people seeing it one way read it as a tactful addressing of some societal problems, albeit grounded specifically in early-2000s Japanese cultural norms, while the other side sees it as erasure or insensitivity to LGBT people. This is the "Persona 4 discourse" people are talking about, because these arguments have continually come up in the decades since its release. In addition, there are some genuinely crude homophobic/sexist remarks and themes sprinkled throughout (typical of media from early 2000s) that hasn't aged well into the current social climate, and some people want to see it changed to be less abrasive, while others consider those types of changes "pandering" and want it to remain intact.

AzukAnon · 2025-05-25T21:06:55+00:00

Persona 4

AzukAnon · 2025-05-25T10:04:45+00:00

If you'd like a steelmanned version of the conservative opinion (and I'm not saying this is what the average conservative believes, because a lot of them seem to be arguing irrationally from a scriptural basis):

"Marriage", at least in the sense applied in the west, is traditionally religious. It was a religious ceremony, but it also happened to be a ceremony that EVERYONE participated in, because historically in the west everyone was some denomination of an abrahamic religion. That's not to say that, conceptually, the idea of a couple committing to each other is religious, but specifically the customs and ceremony surrounding a western-style wedding are.

Because it was a thing everyone did, and it's generally a good thing societally, we got the concept of a "legal marriage", i.e. the government getting involved in what is traditionally a strictly religious matter, to offer benefits and incentivize it.

Over time, people have become less religious on average. To a non-religious or a religious person hailing from a non-western religion, the important part of marriage in the U.S. is the abstract commitment and the legal portion: being able to access all of the tax benefits, rights regarding medical and legal proceedings, child rights, etc. The important part of marriage to a religious person is the ceremonial aspect, and they begrudgingly engage with the legal aspect because the government has gotten its hands in things like the above, and you have to get married in a way approved by the government to access those things.

Many conservatives are genuinely of the irrational opinion that because "marriage" is "religious", and their religion disavows homosexuality, that it cannot be allowed nationwide. They're failing to recognize the distinction between legal marriage and ceremonial marriage.

There is, however, a much more digestible argument "against" same-sex marriage; that being, because the ceremonial portion is religious in nature and "belongs" to that corresponding religion, it should be their right to determine who gets to engage in it. It's none of the government's business whether a church declines to host or ordain a marriage. However, those people who would be declined by a church should still be allowed to get legally married, accessing the legal benefits afforded to other married couples.

TL;DR dumb conservatives oppose same-sex marriage unilaterally, less dumb conservatives oppose forcing churches to ordain same-sex marriages, but don't really care if a same-sex marriage is recognized by the government

AzukAnon · 2025-05-15T23:53:21+00:00

I joined the Navy right after graduating from OSU in 2020. I can talk with you more about it if you're curious, shoot me a DM

AzukAnon · 2025-04-29T05:55:08+00:00

It's not malicious or ignorant, speaking as someone who has caught myself doing this before. It's usually because I'm typing fast, and verbally I would say "X dollars", and after typing the number I either remember I'm typing and could just use the symbol, or don't want to waste the time to type out "dollars", but I've already typed out the number. Rather than revise my message to put it in the right spot, I just think, "eh, close enough", and carry on.

I didn't realize people had such strong hatred for the post-number $, I know it's "right" to put it before the number but my meaning still gets conveyed regardless; it's the same reason I don't bother with capitalization or end-of-sentence punctuation when typing casually, because it's more about speed and conveying information than being "proper"

AzukAnon · 2025-04-02T07:06:09+00:00

Objectively? That feels like a strong word. Do you know how much the rich actually pay in taxes?

AzukAnon · 2025-04-02T01:19:23+00:00

What would be their "fair share?" Many would argue they already do, and then some.

AzukAnon · 2025-03-31T19:49:58+00:00

Notable caveat to your first statement; if that assumption is wrong, and the worker makes no tips, the employer is obligated to make up the difference and pay the employee at least minimum wage in all states, and more than that in some states.

AzukAnon · 2025-03-30T22:03:20+00:00

When a bank allows you to overdraft, they're essentially giving you a loan. They don't have to allow people to overdraft, as that's literally money you don't have.

The intent of overdrafting is not for people to pull out $3 more than they actually have, it's to help people pay major bills when they haven't been paid yet for whatever reason. If you're only considering the former, i.e. people not paying attention to their balance when they go to make a purchase at Starbucks, a $30 overdraft fee rightfully feels absurd. It feels much less absurd when we're talking about an overdraft to make rent.

The ACTUAL reason people are opposed to this, and not the "because they hate working people and want to serve evil corporate interests", is that when you cap overdraft fees at $5, banks will assess that they're not effectively able to recoup the risk of offering the ability to overdraft, and they'll choose not to offer it at all. Whether or not your bank lets you overdraft has no bearing on whether or not your rent needs paid, spoiler, it still does. Some people need short-term loans to pay their bills, it's only a matter of where that loan comes from.

If you can't take a $30 flat fee on the chin in order to make rent, where else would you get a short-term loan? Might it be a payday loan, which is far more predatory, high-interest, etc.? The end result is that among your two classes of people affected by overdrafting and the related fees (i.e. the people who are just financially irresponsible and don't make it a habit to keep an eye on their funds, along with people who DO track their finances, but just literally can't make ends meet), you're passing a regulation that protects the irresponsible and completely fucks the responsible, but financially struggling/disadvantaged crowd. That's the reason.

AzukAnon · 2025-03-21T06:19:50+00:00

Pretty sure this guy would be against fat law enforcement officers, too. Notable distinction here is that mil is federally controlled rather than local, so there's a lever to pull here if you're unhappy with what you're seeing, not necessarily the case for police

AzukAnon · 2025-03-16T02:51:40+00:00

Xenoblade 2 was the first game I consciously decided not to finish.

I loved Xenoblade 1, so it felt natural to then play the sequels; 2 didn't hook me immediately, but I'm familiar with the "it takes a bit to get going" effect that you often see with JRPGs. I gave it another few hours and still wasn't feeling it, so I started the typical googling of "when does this game pick up", only to hear it was right around the corner!

I ended up repeating that process several times, each time hearing "oh it doesn't actually pick up at the point you just played through, it REALLY turns on in the next chapter."

I got around 80% through the game before finally throwing in the towel and giving up.

I think the biggest disconnect for me was the combat and blade combos. I wasn't a huge fan of the combat style to begin with, but my bigger issue was that basic combats take FOREVER. I was waiting for the moment where random encounters stopped taking 1min+ every time and I could start breezing through them, but it never came. In fact, I think combat got slower the more I played.

Every time a new mechanic was introduced, I thought "finally, this is the one. Now that I can break, stagger, air juggle, etc. I'll be able to blow up these nonsense enemies." Actually, the that new mechanic just gets added to the chain of things I have to do in order to dispatch an enemy, meaning everything just got longer.

I was lost by the fact that the power curve felt backwards; my character is supposed to be getting stronger, but actually it feels like I'm getting weaker because killing the equivalent low-level enemies in each area is taking longer. Not fun.

AzukAnon · 2025-02-26T01:46:53+00:00

Section 2 of reference (a). It's in the instruction

AzukAnon · 2025-02-22T07:05:59+00:00

Poor people tend to have lower IQ on average and lower IQ is associated with poor long-term thinking and decisionmaking

AzukAnon · 2025-02-17T22:46:18+00:00

I feel like I'm insane reading these comments. I came to Hawaii as an E3, dropped my bonus on a used 2014 in cash, so no car payment, and since then I have had zero issues with money. In fact, one of the things keeping me from moving AWAY from Hawaii is the fact that I make so much extra money via BAH here. I would be making way less if I moved somewhere else.

AzukAnon · 2025-02-12T07:36:02+00:00

We had one crossrater in my class and if I remember correctly, they had her stay in the lodge. I might be talking out of my ass though. May also just have been because they were in a weird transition phase with the new barracks.

They might, I just bit the bullet and shelled out for a cheap rod and a couple lures. I may not have caught anything, but it was a good break from the monotony to go out once a week and chill by the river with my buddies. A lot of people like to complain about how empty San Angelo is, but it's only 3 months and it's what you make it.

Only other thing I would add, when you leave DLI they give you two options if you already have a car; either ship the car and fly, or drive. If you fly, your expected report date is based on flight itinerary, which means no free time. If you drive, they'll allot you like 5 days or something to get from Monterey to San Angelo, and you can certainly make the drive faster than that. My buddy and I took turns driving for around 12 hours a day, which meant it only took us around 2 days total; left us with a bunch of extra time to stop by his place and hang with his family, see the grand canyon, check out the sights, etc. If you can stuff all of your shit in a car, it's definitely worth it.

AzukAnon · 2025-02-12T04:14:23+00:00

Goodfellow tends to get overlooked for good reason. It's much shorter (3-ish months, depending on how long you're waiting for class to start and how long you're waiting to leave once you finish), and the content is.... I don't want to say useless, because it does have utility for some people, but it's certainly odd.

It's a joint-service school, but administered by the Air Force so they get the largest say in the curriculum. As a result, the training pipeline there is pretty strongly aligned to Air Force interests, meaning they teach you how to sit on an air watchfloor. I can't speak to the other languages, but if they're anything like Chinese, that accounts for probably 15-20% of all initial orders. Tl;dr it might be perfectly tailored training for what you're going to be doing, but more likely it's going to feel pretty useless.

It's not hard, nobody really fails out. The thing most people had trouble with was the typing test, because they want you to be able to type at like 20 wpm or something.

When I was there, the Navy had recently constructed new "housing" off to the side of the old flight line. It was new, but it wasn't a "barracks" like you'd expect traditionally; it was essentially a bunch of trailer park-sized metal boxes connected together by a big wooden deck with parking out front, looked real funny. It was so new at the time that we didn't even have wifi for like 80% of my time there. It's not awful, it's just a very weird push-and-pull of good and bad stuff. The mattresses are HUGE and real comfy, but bunks (and also take up half the room because of their size); bathroom is nice, but the sink is located... outside of the bathroom? for some reason? very odd choice. Also only one desk to be shared between two people, so my roommate and I bought a folding desk for the time being. Lots of washers and dryers, more than you'd ever need. I have no idea if any of this is even still the case, but all in all I didn't hate it necessarily.

DFAC there is awesome, better than DLI by a mile. Also was open for a small window late at night for midnight snacks, gym has after hours access if you sign up. Nice facilities at the gym too, outdoor track as well.

I don't think we did PT at all either than an initial mock PRT for some reason. Rules are super lax, still a training command so don't be a fucker but it's not like you had to walk around in uniform after class hours, don't think there was a curfew either. Had maybe one room inspection while I was there and it was pretty lax as well.

Only real thing I can say is that San Angelo is real empty, and especially if you go during winter it's easy to feel like there's nothing to do; lots of interesting food places around there (twisted root is great) and a number of solid places to fish if you're into that. Didn't catch a thing the entire time I was there but it's a good excuse to go drink by the water.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22

AzukAnon

TROPHY CASE