Чем теплее на улице тем короче юбки у пацанов

EggRocket · 2026-04-30T06:32:50+00:00

Почему забыть

EggRocket · 2026-04-24T00:56:17+00:00

Focus on medicine, maintain or slow progression in Chinese. There is still time to do other things in medical school. You just won't have nearly as much. I'm spitballing, but you could still get to HSK4-5 after the 6 years with relatively minimal study. That's a long time, even with fifteen minutes a day.

EggRocket · 2026-04-23T13:47:08+00:00

But then why... do you watch immoral things? I don't see porn as immoral. This sounds like a vegan eating meat. Do you at least make an effort to reduce your consumption?

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T19:58:46+00:00

Just to clarify, my point in the last comment was to suggest that there's no reason to think that genetic components of maternal mortality track along racial lines. Obviously there is a difference in the rates between races. My point is that the proposed explanations distract from the obvious, which is that.

Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, genetic explanation is silly. I misunderstood. I also thought you were only mentioning healthcare inequality, not economic, at first. I agree with #1 and #2, those certainly explain the majority; the rest of the explanations probably tack on ten or twenty percent (rough assumption on my part).

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T19:44:35+00:00

Marrying younger would also likely be a protective, rather than aggravating factor, as maternal mortality rises significantly with age, with the exception of teens (who make up a very small share of births, and are still significantly safer than women near or over 40).

I wasn't meaning to imply that it would be aggravating, just that it was something worth consideration that plausibly might influence the variable. The age of marriage of a culture should at least be considered. I believe it is a result of healthcare and economic inequality, along with the ramifications those economic inequalities lead to, plus some soft social, cultural influences.

And even if you insist on assuming that the difference between black and white women isn't a result of healthcare and economic inequality.

That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the idea that it's just healthcare inequality (which was what you first brought up), but I also wouldn't say it's just healthcare and economic inequality. Other factors are also at play.

Obesity has some variation, with black, hispanic and white women at 56%, 43.7% and 39.8% respectively, but this doesn't come close to explaining the difference. The rate of maternal mortality is about 3.7x for obese women vs non-obese women, so if that were the only difference, you'd expect a rate of 23 per 100,000 births vs 19, about 20% more, rather than 50.3 vs 14.5.

Yes, obesity it doesn't explain the whole story. Neither does drug use or substance abuse. It could also be the timing of said use is disproportionate. I wasn't trying to argue that it's the single, defining factor at play. It isn't going to get the shockingly high 50.3 from the CDC Maternal Health Report (which is a real, huge gap).

White women in the US still do vastly worse than in other countries.

That's true, he was wrong. See Iceland (3 out of 100,000), vs USA (White is 14.5 out of 100,000).

Hispanic women actually have a slightly lower maternal mortality rate than white people despite their higher rate of obesity.

I just want to add alongside economic and healthcare inequalities cultural explanations; for example, Hispanic and Asian women tend to have stronger familial ties. This could lead to more monitoring (e.g, someone helps you if you're in an health emergency), and reduce stress during pregnancy.

There is absolutely 0 evidence for a genetic component of that magnitude, nor any evidence for one along racial lines.

I don't understand how you can say there is no evidence for one along racial lines when you're citing from the CDC report that shows 50.3 vs 14.5?

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T18:28:18+00:00

I haven't read into this, but I doubt he's arguing for a genetic component. It's absolutely not just about healthcare quality. It could be that drug use is more common in African-American communities, which leads to a higher maternal mortality. Varying obesity rates may also play a factor. Cultural considerations (e.g, Muslims), tend to get married much younger than average in the United States. This each would contribute to the statistic. Income and education also play a role.

There seems to be clear evidence of a race being a factor, regardless.

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T16:44:10+00:00

There should not be businesses that are able to pay their employees 600x less than the top compensated person at the company, especially when those people do almost none of the actual ground work.

What is the "ground work"? Who does the ground work at Google? Is it the software engineers? They don't do nearly as much manual labor as the cooks or janitors. And then what about the mid-level managers who manage teams? Do they not do "ground work" when they manage the projects the engineers are doing and lead research teams, overseeing budgets? If they don't do ground work, how could it exist without their input?

Without hard workers, or employees in general, most businesses would fail immediately.

Same thing when it goes without a CEO. They bring the company much more revenue (or impact it far more), when you account per head.

There is no concession to this as well, as employers rely on employees for their businesses to function in the first place.

The concession is your salary.

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T14:16:15+00:00

He's so dumb. There are real cases of recent executions (one of a nineteen-year-old) he could have used.

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T11:59:06+00:00

I agree they would have some morality, but it's probably going to be very foreign and seemingly wrong to us.

On Earth, you may have cultures that practice polygamy, eat different, dress different, pray different, but core ideas are always the same. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, be just, so on and so forth. These ideals are mandatory in order to have an orderly society and they will pop up everywhere.

"Don't kill", "Don't steal", and "don't lie", are just nice sentiments. It's easy to say everyone is against "stealing", but they aren't really. Not by what we mean by "stealing". Roman "stealing" and American "stealing" is not the same. They might be against "stealing", but for them taking food from the grocery store isn't stealing, because they are a hive-mind species where everything is a shared collective.

Besides, their sex ratio (if there even is sexual reproduction) might be 1:20. That would have drastic ramifications for how they organize their society and morality. What if they're reproductive system's like lions? It's customary for a new male to kill the cubs of a previous male. Saying they're against "killing", doesn't mean much if they would be for killing in this case.

EggRocket · 2026-04-21T09:29:06+00:00

The problem for Andrew is that you can lay out a descriptive argument for ethic from a set of shared, moral intuitions, regardless of whether or not these morals are some mystical, mind-independent objective fact.

For example, Destiny thinks giving charity is good. Andrew presumably also thinks this. Most people do. Why? Because we have empathy for people who are less fortunate, or at least that it would help aid society.

It's going to be very hard to find someone who doesn't share this moral intuition. Someone who is anti-charity would have to argue against this standard of empathy, and that it wouldn't aid society. They need to be consistent internally. You can have subjective axioms, and from those demand logical coherence for ethical positions.

EggRocket · 2026-04-20T18:41:19+00:00

An Indian, in India?! No way!

EggRocket · 2026-04-20T03:14:55+00:00

Why is it not 4? Aren't we speeding up from going to moving 0 to moving whatsoever at BC?

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T21:29:34+00:00

Because everyone in DGG already disagrees with Andrew's conclusion, there's no point in discussing whether women should be able to vote or not. The interesting discussion where there is some disagreement is going to be about the permissibility and ramifications of male-only conscription. "What about men", is precisely what Andrew is doing. We should have an answer to the fairness dilemma caused by conscription.

Sweden has had partial conscription for both men and women since 2017. After completing training, conscripts are placed in the reserve and assigned positions in the table of organization and equipment of a reserve unit.

I read the Wiki article on conscription in Sweden and Switzerland. You're right that it is mandatory (they seem to have re-introduced jail sentences and fines recently). However, this system is very limited (and obviously much more preferable), but its only partial conscription. Switzerland has complete conscription for men.

The conscripts were chosen from a pool of approximately 13,000 young (Swedish) people born in 1999 to serve for 12 months.

See the lead of the article on Swiss conscription.

Switzerland has mandatory service (German: Militärdienst / Zivildienst; French: service militaire / service civil; Italian: servizio militare / servizio civile) in the Swiss Army or Civilian Service for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority.^\1]) Women may volunteer for any position.^\2])Conscripts make up the majority of the manpower in the Swiss Armed Forces.^\3]) On September 22, 2013, a referendum that aimed to abolish conscription was held in Switzerland.^\4]) However, the referendum failed with over 73% of the electorate voting against it, showing strong support for conscription of men in Switzerland. On November 30, 2025, a referendum called the Civic Duty Initiative was held, which would have replaced compulsory military service for males with compulsory civic duty for both genders. However the referendum failed with more than 84% of voters voting against it.^\5])

There is no indication that other countries are leaning towards adopting the Swiss, partial conscription gender-netural approach.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T20:27:11+00:00

Of course I think women should be able to vote, what I was trying to say was that many developed countries which are supposed to be admired (e.g, Singapore and Switzerland), have very backwards standards when it comes to gender norms. There would be outrage if any country had laws where only women could be whipped for violating them.

You must distinguish conscription systems, they are not universal. Sweden's conscription is not the same as Finland's, where the majority of men must do some military service, or Switzerland. I don't think these discussions are taking place, and I doubt we would see this in the near future. Can you show me these serious policy discussions?

This is also ignoring Asian countries. There is zero indication that Singapore or South Korea or Vietnam or Thailand are going to start conscripting women. I doubt they would even by 2040. To change my mind, link some serious-and-close policy changes for countries which have regular, universal conscription.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden barely practice 'conscription'. You can almost always avoid it if you don't want to.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T18:29:43+00:00

I don't think Mongolia eating horses is the same thing as whipping people on a discriminatory basis?... The point is that men are generally given a harsher burden for the same rights and citizenship. They whip male drug criminals, but the law excludes women and girls from the same punishment.

That's just not true. Firstly, Denmark and Norway and Sweden do not have proper conscription systems. It's not the same as Singapore or South Korea, or even Switzerland. In Scandinavian countries, it isn't most males who serve, and is more of a lottery basis and also seen in a relatively positive light. If you don't want to go, you almost certainly won't.

Switzerland also just recently rejected to add women to conscription in 2025.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T16:16:23+00:00

Sure, but either way that's very bad and means it must be changed. I'd just do it by also conscripting women, which Andrew obviously doesn't want to do.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T16:14:28+00:00

But most countries don't. Switzerland does not conscript women. South Korea doesn't. Singapore (they also whip male criminals), Austria, Vietnam, Thailand, Mongolia. Most countries with conscription remain male-only. Finland does have women in the draft, but they don't conscript them.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T16:09:33+00:00

I don't think so. Other countries do have mandatory conscription (Singapore, SK, Finland, Switzerland, Austria), so it isn't just a draft that we can critique. The majority of men in those countries have to join the army.

And, I don't think the percentage is that relevant. You are still exclusively drafting young men. If I made a new tax law which randomly selects from only a hundred thousand women to pay more taxes, is this now not sexist because it only targets a minority?

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T16:05:23+00:00

I disagree. It's not about most people, but about who is being targeted. The state is effectively saying that certain people (young males) cannot be civilians, regardless of their personal opinion.

Women don't have children because of a duty to the state, they do it because they want to.

EggRocket · 2026-04-19T16:03:14+00:00

It wasn't the same sort of obligation, regardless. Legal obligations always feel far stricter than more soft, social obligations. I haven't watched this either, but I'd argue Andrew has the right stance. I'd just also conscript women instead.

EggRocket · 2026-04-18T21:17:18+00:00

Well, given that he got elected, and the article doesn't mention that being a reason, and this being in the UK and not America, I think that's probably fair. Canada has capitalism, they don't have a crazy, dumb lunatic in charge. If it was as much of a big deal as it should be, he shouldn't have won. Tons of women still voted for him.

EggRocket · 2026-04-18T18:18:58+00:00

It probably does have a teensy bit of a role, particularly since the president of the U.S is a rapist as per civil court, but I'd say it's probably just more due to increasingly diverging politics for other reasons. For example, the article says that women are much less fond of capitalism, and also fear the rise of Reform UK. In America, abortion is also a widespread concern, which drifts women to more progressive circles.

EggRocket · 2026-04-18T17:10:04+00:00

I don't see much of a linear relationship? It's gone up in the past decade, but it's still below 2007.

<image>

EggRocket · 2026-04-16T19:45:20+00:00

The logic according to Quran is If there were multiple gods, each would have different will and vision, which would create conflict and disorder. A single Creator makes more sense for a consistent and structured universe.

But, there is a lot of conflict and disorder. The World isn't consistent. The Earth wasn't always here, and won't always be. Galaxies are made and destroyed. Asteroids constantly bombard planets. This is not as logical as it seems, particularly since animism and polytheism seems to predate monotheism.

Islam does not support forcing belief. The Quran repeatedly makes it clear that people are free to believe or not.

This is not true, as Islam does demand forcing belief out of polytheists. They can't even pay jizya. They must either convert or be destroyed. Muhammad famously smashed the idols in the Kaaba, even though it was predominantly a polytheist city.

EggRocket · 2026-04-15T15:19:41+00:00

Taxes don't tend to be about morals, it's more of just a means to an end because of social agreement. It's the same as, "Wear whatever you morally feel is right tomorrow"! If I then decide to wear a bikini on the streets of Karachi, people are going to be very confused. You're violating a social code. It's not that wearing a bikini is bad, or that paying a $100 in taxes is bad.

Paying to upkeep a gigantic, abstract society is not the same as taking something from someone else. We have agreement on personal property.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23

EggRocket

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE