Only a small percentage of women are as you describe. However, they are probably a large percentage of the women you are most attracted to physically. Just make clear in early dates that's not how it's going to be, and let them self-select.
It's wrong to suggest that it's all about being unable to attract a woman. There are certainly people who have that issue, and there are people who have been burned by a woman and have sworn them off. But there is a legitimate argument that our marriage laws and courts advantage women. Our dating culture also advantages women, though I am bothered by this less, because you can always just ignore the culture and have your own sense of fairness.
I think marriage has been a failure. I struggle to understand what it even means at this point. You're right that it's not about procreation, because people physically unable or just unwilling to procreate are married all the time. And unmarried couples have children all the time. It's not about commitment, because you can terminate the marriage at any time for any reason in most states. Divorce rates are high. Infidelity rates are high. It's not about supporting women financially as dependents, because our society wants women in the workplace, and many see financial dependency as a dangerous situation for women anyway.
Outside of obtaining a particular tax filing status and access to social security spousal benefits, what does it mean to be married? What is the difference between an unmarried cohabitating couple and a married couple? Since this is often a charged discussion, I will be explicit and say I'm genuinely interested to hear perspectives on this question, as I struggle to come up with an answer.
The issue here is that we are using one word to describe two wholly distinct things. This problem with the language forces you to confuse the issue in your response, too. Marriage is both a contract between two individuals (having nothing to do with the state, except that the state enforces the contract) and also a government legal status written into various laws. You can have one, the other, or both. Two men were always allowed to marry each other in the sense that marriage is a contract between them. But two men were not previously given the government status of "married", and therefore certain tax situations and welfare benefits did not apply to them.
Marriage as a contract is actually quite a strange thing. If you essentially opt-in to your state's default marriage contract terms by having no explicit contract when you marry your partner, the terms can be changed after the fact without your consent. For example, the state in which you are married can change its laws regarding property split upon divorce. This retroactively applies to you, having been married many years earlier, even though you had no opportunity to agree, and may not have even been notified.
Marriage is a contract between two people able to provide consent. As far as I can tell, "marrying a robot" is little more than clickbait and has no more meaning than being able to marry your car. You would need to first ascribe uniquely human rights to robots, then you would need to judge them able to consent and enter into a contract.
Or perhaps we are purely talking about the government's status of "married" for tax filing and welfare benefits purposes (like the gay marriage debate). Of course, here the government could do whatever the heck they wanted with the definition. You could access the separate tax brackets by getting a marriage license with your robot if the government says you're allowed to do that. You could obtain social security spousal benefits if your robot dies, if the government says you're allowed to do that. But, again, not all that interesting and just a clickbait headline.
Same here but we are business travelers. The Hawaiian shirt brigade does not buy these fares. If you are not on a route with a high % of business travelers, it will be hard to sell a seat in the last couple weeks when the cheaper advanced purchase fares are not available.
This is an impressively unhinged reply. Even more impressive is that it makes no sense. If a seat goes unused, that is inefficient. It doesn't matter the circumstances in which that occurred or whether someone paid for that unused seat. It is better for the passengers if the airline fills every seat and maximizes the revenue potential. Airlines are a commodity industry and competition prevents excess profit, so this practice just keeps ticket prices low for the Hawaiian shirt brigade
Meetings run long. They get canceled or rescheduled. People oversleep and need to take a later flight. Or they get in a fight with their girlfriend and take an earlier flight. They misconnect because their first leg was delayed.
Heck, one time I was was at my gate really early (early enough that there was another flight at the gate before mine), working on my laptop until my flight. And I missed my flight at the very gate I'm sitting in because my laptop clock was in a different time zone and I was so focused on work that I didn't hear announcements that my flight was boarding.
Also changes made in the last 1-2 weeks are hard to resell. Most "subsidized" leisure fare buckets have advance booking rules, and leisure travelers won't pay full fare coach. So late changes are very similar to "no shows".
This always makes me laugh. Almost every airline operates exactly the same way. Every irregular ops flight I'm on, some rare flyer is stomping around saying they will never fly this airline again, as if the other airlines don't have mechanical delays or staff union rules or overbook their flights or get screwed by air traffic control every once in a while. Even when it's weather!
Happens all the time. Meetings get canceled or rescheduled. Incoming leg gets delayed and they misconnect. Also, changes to tickets have the same effect if done in the last week or two when it will be difficult to resell the seat.
This is a really immature view of the practice, bordering on conspiracy theory. The airlines are optimizing to overbook as close as possible to the rate of no-shows/changes, but when they get it wrong they lose money. You pay $300-500 for a RT fare and if they have to VDB you on a single leg, they will spend $400-650 on vouchers, meals, and possibly hotel. And if they have to IDB when nobody volunteers, things get a lot worse for them.
You want them to do this. It increases efficiency and keeps ticket prices down.
This is not an open question and the answer is not news. Of course they overbook their flights, and you should be happy they do. Unused seats are inefficient and result in higher ticket prices. If x% don't show up to a given route, then the airline should oversell up to x% depending on the VDB cost (e.g. "500 Delta dollars") and the cost of the fare.
Most passengers have their tickets heavily subsidized by price insensitive passengers (e.g. Business travelers). If you're reading an article claiming that your average passenger is "getting screwed", you can be sure the author has no idea what he or she is talking about.
Once you have achieved a feat like this, the last thing you want is for your shiny new solar road thingy to be destroyed by tigers. I've got access to the finest all natural tiger repellent. I've been wearing it for a year and haven't had one tiger mess with me. Please have the people in this city's procurement office give me a ring, and I will give them a great price. While I have them on the line, I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.
If you think that is justification, then you have not been paying attention to outright reversals in nutrition and health science over the last two decades.
Here is an article on the other side of the argument.
tldr: article suggests safety net disrupts market reorganization in these scenarios by removing incentive to relocate and/or retrain, leading to multi-generational poverty
I'm not sure you read my comment carefully. Perhaps it's my fault for using "control". My point is that to attribute it to "pregnancy", you'd need to, as just one example, show it isn't just the result of low physical activity. I am not referring to the kind of control you seem to be thinking based on your response. Hope that clarification helps.
So, you take before and after scans and attribute the difference to "pregnancy". That's pretty broad. Women do a lot of things differently when pregnant, and they are less active. Did you control for all that? Then you assert the difference in scans helps mothers bond and anticipate baby needs... basing this assertion on... maybe a dream you had?
Why does this garbage get posted here? This is feel-good nonsense, not science.
This is correct but all per-industry unemployment rates have same issues, so not sure how relevant your point is when making a comparison to other industries.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound bitter
Trained by whom? Men, mostly.
Only a small percentage of women are as you describe. However, they are probably a large percentage of the women you are most attracted to physically. Just make clear in early dates that's not how it's going to be, and let them self-select.
Why do you blame the men? Everything you describe suggests women behaving against their own interests.
If you had to make the argument to a 20-something male who didn't want kids why they should want to get married, what would you even say?
It's wrong to suggest that it's all about being unable to attract a woman. There are certainly people who have that issue, and there are people who have been burned by a woman and have sworn them off. But there is a legitimate argument that our marriage laws and courts advantage women. Our dating culture also advantages women, though I am bothered by this less, because you can always just ignore the culture and have your own sense of fairness.
I don't endorse these movements, but they have a well thought out perspective that shouldn't just be summarily dismissed like you've done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think marriage has been a failure. I struggle to understand what it even means at this point. You're right that it's not about procreation, because people physically unable or just unwilling to procreate are married all the time. And unmarried couples have children all the time. It's not about commitment, because you can terminate the marriage at any time for any reason in most states. Divorce rates are high. Infidelity rates are high. It's not about supporting women financially as dependents, because our society wants women in the workplace, and many see financial dependency as a dangerous situation for women anyway.
Outside of obtaining a particular tax filing status and access to social security spousal benefits, what does it mean to be married? What is the difference between an unmarried cohabitating couple and a married couple? Since this is often a charged discussion, I will be explicit and say I'm genuinely interested to hear perspectives on this question, as I struggle to come up with an answer.
Nothing in parent's comment indicated he/she is religious.
The issue here is that we are using one word to describe two wholly distinct things. This problem with the language forces you to confuse the issue in your response, too. Marriage is both a contract between two individuals (having nothing to do with the state, except that the state enforces the contract) and also a government legal status written into various laws. You can have one, the other, or both. Two men were always allowed to marry each other in the sense that marriage is a contract between them. But two men were not previously given the government status of "married", and therefore certain tax situations and welfare benefits did not apply to them.
Marriage as a contract is actually quite a strange thing. If you essentially opt-in to your state's default marriage contract terms by having no explicit contract when you marry your partner, the terms can be changed after the fact without your consent. For example, the state in which you are married can change its laws regarding property split upon divorce. This retroactively applies to you, having been married many years earlier, even though you had no opportunity to agree, and may not have even been notified.
> which means that it would need to be regarded as a sentient entity in its own right. I think that we're more than 35 years away from that.
Honest philosophical question: why should this ever be the case?
This is a pretty strange question. Definitions of words are important when they are used in laws.
Marriage is a contract between two people able to provide consent. As far as I can tell, "marrying a robot" is little more than clickbait and has no more meaning than being able to marry your car. You would need to first ascribe uniquely human rights to robots, then you would need to judge them able to consent and enter into a contract.
Or perhaps we are purely talking about the government's status of "married" for tax filing and welfare benefits purposes (like the gay marriage debate). Of course, here the government could do whatever the heck they wanted with the definition. You could access the separate tax brackets by getting a marriage license with your robot if the government says you're allowed to do that. You could obtain social security spousal benefits if your robot dies, if the government says you're allowed to do that. But, again, not all that interesting and just a clickbait headline.
If the goal is to discourage population growth, why would you subsidize reproduction at all?
Same here but we are business travelers. The Hawaiian shirt brigade does not buy these fares. If you are not on a route with a high % of business travelers, it will be hard to sell a seat in the last couple weeks when the cheaper advanced purchase fares are not available.
This is an impressively unhinged reply. Even more impressive is that it makes no sense. If a seat goes unused, that is inefficient. It doesn't matter the circumstances in which that occurred or whether someone paid for that unused seat. It is better for the passengers if the airline fills every seat and maximizes the revenue potential. Airlines are a commodity industry and competition prevents excess profit, so this practice just keeps ticket prices low for the Hawaiian shirt brigade
Meetings run long. They get canceled or rescheduled. People oversleep and need to take a later flight. Or they get in a fight with their girlfriend and take an earlier flight. They misconnect because their first leg was delayed.
Heck, one time I was was at my gate really early (early enough that there was another flight at the gate before mine), working on my laptop until my flight. And I missed my flight at the very gate I'm sitting in because my laptop clock was in a different time zone and I was so focused on work that I didn't hear announcements that my flight was boarding.
Also changes made in the last 1-2 weeks are hard to resell. Most "subsidized" leisure fare buckets have advance booking rules, and leisure travelers won't pay full fare coach. So late changes are very similar to "no shows".
This always makes me laugh. Almost every airline operates exactly the same way. Every irregular ops flight I'm on, some rare flyer is stomping around saying they will never fly this airline again, as if the other airlines don't have mechanical delays or staff union rules or overbook their flights or get screwed by air traffic control every once in a while. Even when it's weather!
Happens all the time. Meetings get canceled or rescheduled. Incoming leg gets delayed and they misconnect. Also, changes to tickets have the same effect if done in the last week or two when it will be difficult to resell the seat.
This is a really immature view of the practice, bordering on conspiracy theory. The airlines are optimizing to overbook as close as possible to the rate of no-shows/changes, but when they get it wrong they lose money. You pay $300-500 for a RT fare and if they have to VDB you on a single leg, they will spend $400-650 on vouchers, meals, and possibly hotel. And if they have to IDB when nobody volunteers, things get a lot worse for them.
You want them to do this. It increases efficiency and keeps ticket prices down.
This is not an open question and the answer is not news. Of course they overbook their flights, and you should be happy they do. Unused seats are inefficient and result in higher ticket prices. If x% don't show up to a given route, then the airline should oversell up to x% depending on the VDB cost (e.g. "500 Delta dollars") and the cost of the fare.
Most passengers have their tickets heavily subsidized by price insensitive passengers (e.g. Business travelers). If you're reading an article claiming that your average passenger is "getting screwed", you can be sure the author has no idea what he or she is talking about.
Kind of assumes the direction of the prevailing wind pretty well tracks the sun.
Once you have achieved a feat like this, the last thing you want is for your shiny new solar road thingy to be destroyed by tigers. I've got access to the finest all natural tiger repellent. I've been wearing it for a year and haven't had one tiger mess with me. Please have the people in this city's procurement office give me a ring, and I will give them a great price. While I have them on the line, I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.
The taxpayers of this town are the real VIP.
If you think that is justification, then you have not been paying attention to outright reversals in nutrition and health science over the last two decades.
Here is an article on the other side of the argument.
tldr: article suggests safety net disrupts market reorganization in these scenarios by removing incentive to relocate and/or retrain, leading to multi-generational poverty
http://reason.com/archives/201...
I'm not sure you read my comment carefully. Perhaps it's my fault for using "control". My point is that to attribute it to "pregnancy", you'd need to, as just one example, show it isn't just the result of low physical activity. I am not referring to the kind of control you seem to be thinking based on your response. Hope that clarification helps.
So, you take before and after scans and attribute the difference to "pregnancy". That's pretty broad. Women do a lot of things differently when pregnant, and they are less active. Did you control for all that? Then you assert the difference in scans helps mothers bond and anticipate baby needs... basing this assertion on... maybe a dream you had?
Why does this garbage get posted here? This is feel-good nonsense, not science.
Perhaps Jill Stein is their new fundraising director
This is correct but all per-industry unemployment rates have same issues, so not sure how relevant your point is when making a comparison to other industries.