I’m on Sync, dunno about anything else.

I have gone through phases of blocking very vocal idiots, but then as you said I feel at an informational disadvantage.

I’ve gotten recently into tagging people with descriptions of repeated behavior. That way I still know what’s going on, but I know what to expect from them.

Guillotines are too tame for modern audiences. Wood chippers are fresh and exciting.

Only pedantically. Economic systems have to run on something, whatever that something is will flow to the top.

America is soft on white collar crime. It’s tough as nails on anyone with a net worth under 7 figures.

Technically, the first time was me misdialing my mom at work. Her number was 91x-1yyy, and I missed the x.

The first time I intentionally dialed 911 was to alert them of a dead deer or something in the middle of the road that I almost hit. Probably should’ve used the non-emergency line, but 911 is a lot easier to dial while driving.

The problem with most problematic habits and behavior is that they feel really good. People don’t generally engage in harmful behaviors that also feel bad.

I know what consent is. I’m saying that applying the concept of consent here is nonsensical. Consent is so logically impossible that it’s irrelevant. This is the part beyond understanding.

That’s why I bothered to go into any of the rest of the concern. The prior consent angle is meaningless, so the next place you go is retroactive consent.

I do want a biological child or two, but I do also agree with prioritizing adoption. I plan to adopt/foster several children after my biological children grow up. Personally, I feel that’s a bit more ethical, as I’d like to establish my parental skills with the benefits of raising from birth and biological similarity, before I presume to handle the additional complexities of a child with a past.

My point is the anti natalists have the perspective that the risk of suffering is not worth imposing on a new human.

You saying that assessment is overblown does not change their perspective

The real part I didn’t understand is the “prior consent” part. Like I said, before you have the child, there’s nothing to ask for consent. It doesn’t make any sense.

But as to the rest, I’m saying that the assessment is so overblown that it ceases to be rational. A fraction of a fraction of a percent of people will never get fulfillment from life, so no one should ever have children?

There’s always some risk associated with everything. To never do anything because there’s a minuscule chance it could be disastrous is ridiculous.

You have luxuries like a communication medium and some electronics that you use to your liking.

As do you, as does everyone else on the digital platforms on which the anti-natalist sentiment primarily resides.

And you can always revoke consent.

I want to be clear that I don’t recommend it. I think in the vast majority of cases, it is a permanent solution to temporary problems. I think the vast majority of people who consider it can live to change their minds.

I do think there are those who are so irreversibly disabled that their lives really are mostly suffering, and I support the right of those people to revoke their consent to life. But I think those cases are very rare.

Assuming the environment is reasonably stable, and there’s no serious history of irreversibly disabling conditions, I don’t think there’s a moral compunction to anti-natalism.

I cannot understand this kind of anti-natalist perspective. My life isn’t perfect, and I’ve definitely had my share of struggle and suffering, but I’m elated at the experience overall. There’s absolutely a lot of cruelty and ugliness in the world, but there’s also profound beauty. Not even physical beauty like landscapes and sunsets and stuff, but moving, personal beauty: selfless generosity and compassion, performing artists in flow state, unity and cooperation, real love.

There wasn’t a me to consent to sentience before I had the sentience to consent with, so by your ruling no one could ever be born. Now that I have sentience, I’m glad of it and give my enthusiastic retroactive consent.

The materials of the walls and “steps” makes sauna seem unlikely. There wasn’t any distortion in the thin wood panels, which I would expect in a steam room.

Maybe? That’s not a horrible explanation

That just seems so excessive for that to be the intended use

The funny thing is, thanks to fever, this “cold war” is both literally and figuratively a hot war.

Yes, and I considered that. But why the window? And the outlet?

Out of frame are various baby things: high chair, toys, disassembled crib. I assume that’s just a baby mattress sitting there in storage

If the room the window leads to like a living room / sitting room?

Nope, in fact to the left of the bedroom door is a washer/dryer and this perplexing little closet:

Positive, it’s tile and I checked. Maybe it’s a staircase to a basement access that’s been sealed? But that doesn’t explain the window.