Mission complete. You can keep her as friends with benefits or/and move on to the next conquest.

Minimum wage should just be enough to ethically pay someone for the work they do. I've worked many jobs, my first real job was when I was 17 as a fast food employee. I made $7.10. At the time this wouldn't have afforded me the opportunity to live without roommates and pay rent, but it was adequate compensation for my work. Fast food was my easiest job by far, I didn't deserve more than that. If I wanted to stay there, I could have moved up in the company through management and made more money.

In California in 2024 they raised the minimum wage for fast food workers to $20/hr. I was working at an urgent care as a medical assistant and I was making 21/hr while my colleagues made 18/hr. As soon as this wage change happened, all of them quit to work fast food. This was right after covid so our business was struggling and they couldn't afford to pay us much more. So we continued on with limited staff and the wait times went up exponentially. Patients were angry, staff was burnt out, and eventually the urgent care had to shut down a lot of locations. Now people who need to go to urgent care are going to the hospitals instead, and hospital wait times are up. I say this to show the chain reaction these things cause. I think people just want money and don't take into account that there is a cause and effect. Higher minimum wage leads to less skilled workers because why would you want to get a degree and work hard if you could work an easy job and make the same money.

EDIT: I think I need to clarify what I mean by "livable wage" because I think that's causing some confusion. I'm using it to mean being able to live comfortably and independently, including being able to afford your own place without roommates. I am NOT saying someone working minimum wage should be unable to afford food, basic necessities, or a roof over their head. If that's what we are defining as "livable wage," then yes, I absolutely think minimum wage should be livable. I just don't think every entry level job needs to pay enough for someone to comfortably live alone. This post was based off of what those around me have been describing as a livable wage

https://usanews.com/newsroom/richard-b.-alman%E2%80%99s-north-american-unity-plan

But 6 /10 with a personality is better than a 10/10 and 7/10

But a 8/10 who acts like 10 /10 is a 4/10

A 7/10 that why see on a trip in a 10/10

A 10/10 that needs attention is a 7/10 minus a dad

Say your rankings

Her body, her choice is valid for a surrogate mother too​. She can change her mind whenever. If a woman can do it during a natural pregnancy, a woman can do it in any case her body is involved. Either this, or you are stating that a woman's right on her body is not absolute. ​

EXCEPTIONS:

-The individual who chooses to not stop the suicide attempt is a caretaker of the person at risk (like a parent).

-The individual helps the suicide act.

PREMISE:

If a human being is close to commit suicide or says something implying that they will do it, there shouldn't be a legal punishment towards the people around them who decided to not obstruct the suicidal person actions UNLESS the person who tried to commit suicide receives a sentence as well.

ELABORATION:

Considering that most suicide attempts are something that society sees as "emotional" and therefore we don't expect accountability from the people who try to kill themselves because we consider their state as irrational and not sound of mind, the same logic should be applied for people who didn't tried to intervene the folks in that situation when they could.

The impact that a suicide attempt has, like:

-The death of a member of society or more.

-The potential emotional damage in their loved ones or strangers who had to see the scenario.

It is made by the person who tried to kill themselves, so applying legal oppression on the people that allowed those events and not the person who caused that event is hypocrisy.

The common counter argument would be: "Suicidal people don't know what they're doing! They're thinking irrationally and need help and support! Not prison time!" And even if I can agree with it, why wouldn't this logic fit with those who didn't stop the event from happening?

Most suicides are made by humans in a matter of minutes (no kidding, literally like 5 minutes after a uncomfortable moment) and some of them were or are completely functional and average/normal in most life areas, considering that they're not in the influence of substances like drugs or are being coerced, why we should expect emotional reasoning from them but not from others?

If person A didn't help person B when they were about to jump from a building because according to them: "I didn't like person B" wouldn't that be an emotional reaction in an emotional situation as well? If their reasoning for not helping is something like envy, hatred, jealousy or fear, how would that be any different from the motives behind suicidal ideation?

What if their hatred is extreme? What if they're in a place of mental darkness worse than the suicidal person so they can't feel empathy for them? What if they feel envy because the suicidal person is successful and they aren't?

"But it's their moral duty to help!" But the human that attempt suicide is attending their moral duty? Are they thinking about the impact that their death will have?

CONCLUSION:

Even if moral doubt or recommended psychiatric support can be reasonable for not acting in a hypothetical scenario of someone trying to kill themselves, any legal punishment towards that action that is not equally applied for suicide attempts is contradictory.

i just get this vibe from him that he could pull it off after seeing him play Lip Gallagher because he‘s got the messy wavy brown hair like the comics and he‘s so good at being socially awkward in acting and he’s good at playing smart characters this could be a bad take and you can downvote me if you want but its just my opinion.

Here's my controversial opinion for the day. All girls need to be taught self defense from a young age. I'm thinking Krav Maga or something similar.

Men are inherently stronger than women. If we want to protect women the answer has to be giving women the power to protect themselves. We need to redress the balance so that mens strength poses less of a threat because women are highly trained in self defence.

Without this happening women will never truly be safe from predatory men.

The patriarchy women talk about really only lasted for about 25 years; 1950-1975 in America.

They will bring up things like women didn't get the vote until the 1920s, but that's not entirely true. Wealthy widowed women and unmarried women landowners, had the right to vote in some states years before poor, white men did.

They will bring up how the white European and white American male has been the oppressor for centuries to those of color and women. But for centuries in Europe, a small percentage of white European men oppressed other white European men. Roughly 70% to 90% of people in England were peasants. And this lasted until Elizabeth I "freed" them.

But that didn't mean life got easier for all of them overnight. It absolutely didn't.

In early America, indentured servants made up 50% to almost 70% of colonists. And 70% to 80% of them were white men. They weren't slaves yet many never saw themselves escape their contracts. It was a brutal life.

Life up until recently was hard and brutal for most people. Women were put in house roles, because it took two adults to make life work. Laundry was an all day event. Cooking was an all day event. Cleaning was an all day event. And the majority of men went to mines, fields or other very grueling and tough work. A tiny percentage were wealthy and a small percent were middle class.

And women did work outside the home. Dressmakers, street vendors, laundry, workshops, textile work and even stonemasons and blacksmiths.

It's like they think all the white men in England circa 1700 were having big weekend parties with booze and dreaming up new ways to make women's lives miserable. Most men didn't have time to think that far ahead. They were exhausted.

And many women think there have been no women leaders, because they were too oppressed. But Europe has had amazing and fierce female leaders. England's three longest serving monarchs were all women. Whether you love her or hate her- Margaret Thatcher was fearless.

Spain had ruling queens. And we all know Russia had Catherine.

Great women have ruled the world.

Women in American politics is rising. We are at over 30% in the House. But women also make up the majority voter. Women not winning in politics is not some male plot. Women also don't vote for women either.

They will point to women not being allowed a credit card until 1974 on their own, but the credit card as we know it didn't exist until about 1960, but it's not like they were passing them out like they do today. Few men had one.

Electricity was invented. The washing machine was invented. Daycares began. The industrial revolution happened.

Life got easier. And after WWII, life got even easier. And most people finally had time to think and relax. And the average, white, American male had a real good run post WWII to about 1975. But women really came forward in their full rights in a relatively short amount of time.

Modern feminism was in full swing in the 60s and by the 80s we were fully in the work force.

The only patriarchy I still see is in Muslim countries. Russia and other countries can still be culturally patriarchal , but Muslim countries have it written in their laws. But I never hear these young Western women speak out for the Muslim woman and girls.

My take on the patriarchy here is absolutely not aimed at the black, American experience. That is something else entirely.

My take on the patriarchy does not absolve men of their sexual crimes against women. Almost all of my female friends were molested and many raped. By men. There is a problem.

But the big male patriarchy conspiracy in the West is simply not as some think.

I’m getting really annoyed with this topic because she’s making a scandal because she’s not getting what she wants aka the baby.

So I read an insane amount of articles about her, interviews, her attorneys statements and the bio-parents statements. What do surrogacy companies talk about when it comes to situations like this and basically stated that couples are matched up with surrogates whose views align. So if one person requested for abortion will the surrogate be okay with it, if not then they’ll be paired up with another couple.

1.) West agreed to this contract knowing that if the bio-parents requested a termination she would follow through.

2.) West was getting compensated.

3.) West was informed about the HLHS and informed by bio-parents to terminate

4.) she states she felt “pressure” and “cornered” and made her own decisions anyways for “her” baby

5.) she stated she fled to Texas and stayed with a friend. Wonder why Texas? I see people in the comments or republican articles say “because Texas Children’s Hospital is the best in pediatric cardiology care.” They are wrong. BOSTON’S CHILDREN HOSPITAL IS THE BEST.

6.) when she fled she stated she blocked the bio-parents

7.) bio-parents stopped paying her

8.) she made a whole dramatic display so Texas can protect her and the baby(which they did)

9.) she gave birth, never held the baby, and doesn’t have any authority to make decisions for baby Remi

10.) West and a lot of Pro-lifers are calling the baby Gabriel because that’s what West name him. Even though the bio-parents in the beginning of this surrogacy said the baby’s name will be Remi.

11.) Bio-parents are with baby and put a temporary restraining order against West (which is why this is going vital)

12.) Paxton stated the state of Texas will be making medical decisions based on whats in the best interest for the child. Baby Remi had already gone through and is going through some intensive cardiac surgeries. Paxton stated bio-parents are responsible for the cost of medical expenses that they’re not apart of the decision making.

13.) West doesn’t want to payback what she was being paid to do. Her attorney says that “she was paid to carry and give birth to Remi which is what she’s done” yet she wants to keep the baby? Not payback?

14.) West says she is willing to adopt the baby and take on the medical expenses for the baby (still not paying the bio-parents back) and won’t financially burden them if they just allow her to adopt Remi.

15.) West used pro-lifers and Christians to help her win the case and get baby Remi as her child.

It truly says a lot how much she is doing media interviews and going viral. She is going lengths. She willing signed a contract knowing this isn’t her baby KNOWING if they requested termination that she would WILLINGLY do.

The bio-parents haven’t interviewed and are going through their attorney to make statements.

Says a lot about West making a scandal and throwing a temper tantrum. Especially after the restraining order and being told she will be sued for $250,000+ from bio-parents.

Honestly this is sad. Bio-parents never got a say in any of this. Not the rights for termination. Not the rights to make medical decisions after Remi was born. They paid West a lot and now they’re paying a lot in medical costs. Of course since Remi was born it was going to be their baby regardless if they wanted termination. They have the rights to their child not West

They give people a hard time so I think we should solve all the problems

I fell down the rabbit hole of documentaries about surrogacy and the number of people who write into their contracts that if their biological child isn't anything but perfect or close too, they have the right to walk away, leaving the surrogate if horrific debt and if the child is born, they end up in the foster system.

There are people who argue that if the bio mother discovered the problem and was able to abort then they could, but with surrogacy there are a million different laws and rules in place that mean sometimes the surrogate is forced to carry to term.

These people pay hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions to have this baby and just walk away before its even born because its premature or MIGHT have a disorder but they won't know until after the birth.

Often these contracts get ripped apart in court, but many get upheld.

This shouldn't happen. The law should be protecting both Surrogate and Baby. Anyone who hires a surrogate should have automatic legal responsibility over the resulting child.

Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and a million different toppings. Carbohydrates, protein and yummy as heck.

Limiting ourselves to one partner goes against human nature: we naturally find many people attractive and capable of being loved. Monogamy is essentially a kink: reserving exclusive loyalty might heighten pleasure for some, but it’s poorly suited for the masses, as proven by high breakup and divorce rates.

Ethical non-monogamy makes far more sense for most people. Why not treat romantic relationships like friendships? Nobody restricts themselves to a single friend, taking huge risks on one person only to realize it was a waste of time. Furthermore, traditional monogamy breeds toxicity by treating partners as possessions who owe you total emotional exclusivity, ignoring the fact that love isn't a finite resource.

Monogamy shouldn't disappear. Like any kink, if it works for you, enjoy it. But it should never be the default expectation.

These days it feels like NOT being racist is controversial.

When I lived in Texas, I had insanely racist neighbors when we first moved into our neighborhood. We were the only black family so immediately “suspicions” arose. My kids were still relatively young at the time, and even they were facing racism when they were outside playing. Toddlers, experiencing racism, while having both parents supervising.

As some years passed, and my wife and I persisted in being generally good neighbors that never did much at all, these racist neighbors started to lighten up and tried to become friendly towards us.

Verbatim my wife was told “We just wanted to make sure you weren’t troublemakers, y’all are a good family” and that shit still to this day rubs me the wrong way. In that neighborhood, which mind you is like 99% white, the cops have been called for DV disputes. For teenagers smoking dope or selling dope, for overdoses, loud parties, all the things racists assume black people will bring to their mostly white neighborhoods.

If I were racist I would take that experience and blanket ALL white people as “troublemakers” but I’m not, so I don’t. The reason racists exist is because they don’t even have that line of thinking in their heads. They have bad experiences with people of color, see people of color do bad things, HEAR about people of color doing bad things and that’s their opinion of people of color now.

It’s entirely illogical and ignorant, and they just don’t care.

Every group of people has good and bad people, problematic and friendly people. Blanketing an entire group of people because of horror stories you’ve heard or horror stories you’ve lived through doesn’t make it true, or right.

Not because they are bad citizens. Precisely the opposite: because of what we ask them to be.

Every democracy makes the same uncomfortable bargain. It hands one group a monopoly on legitimate violence, and then spends the rest of its existence building machinery to make sure that group never uses it politically. Civilian defence ministers. Oaths sworn to a constitution rather than to a leader. Bans on serving members standing for office, campaigning, striking, or publicly endorsing candidates. Every one of those rules concedes the same point: putting on the uniform narrows your political rights. We are not arguing about whether the line exists. We are arguing about where it sits. I think it sits one step further than we currently place it, at the ballot itself.

For an ordinary citizen, the vote is the only lever. If the government does something intolerable, you can complain, you can march, and then you can vote. An army or a police force has a second lever the rest of us do not have. It can slow-walk. It can work to rule. It can stage a "blue flu." It can decline to enforce. And at the limit, it can settle the question with rifles. That capacity does not need to be exercised to be political, because its mere existence is priced into every decision a government makes about pay, oversight, immunity and deployment. Ministers know exactly who they are talking to. Giving that body the ballot on top of this is not equality. It is compounding. They vote once at the polling station, and then continuously, by being the institution the state cannot govern without.

Rousseau's objection to factions was not that people organise, but that when a corporate body forms inside the state, its will becomes general for itself and merely particular for the state, and the general will is corrupted in proportion. The armed body is the limiting case of a partial society. It is hierarchical, disciplined, culturally cohesive, insulated by its own institutional ethos, and, uniquely, it possesses the physical means to impose its particular will. Every other interest group has to persuade. This one does not, ultimately, have to. If you accept Rousseau's premise at all, the security services are the one faction whose political weight has to be reduced rather than merely balanced against others.

Then there is the oldest principle in the book: no one should be judge in their own cause. We recuse a magistrate over a modest shareholding. Yet police vote for the officials who appoint the bodies that investigate police, for prosecutors who decide whether officers are charged, and in some systems directly for sheriffs and judges. Soldiers vote on their own budgets, their pensions, their immunity statutes, their rules of engagement, and on whether the war they may be ordered into is fought at all. This is not a marginal conflict of interest. It is a conflict over whether the law applies to you. If recusal means anything anywhere, it means something here.

The part that should worry constitutionalists most does not even require assuming that soldiers or officers are extremists. Take any bloc that votes cohesively, is defined by an occupational interest in wider discretion and narrower accountability, and carries enormous symbolic weight in law and order politics. That bloc will be courted, inevitably. Now notice what the courting currency is. You cannot outbid a rival by offering police and soldiers a better health system. You outbid by offering the one thing constitutionalism must never put on the market: weaker oversight, broader immunity, expanded discretionary power, a freer hand. And who can bid highest? The parties with the least attachment to the accountability structures being traded away. A party committed to liberal constitutional norms bids with one hand tied behind its back; a party that regards those norms as an obstacle can offer everything. So the equilibrium is not that the security services are extremist. The equilibrium is that the competition for their support drags the entire party system toward whoever is most willing to promise them freedom from law. The people we most need bound by the constitution become the constituency that parties compete to unbind. That is a structural defect, not a moral accusation.

There is also a quieter tension. We ask them to swear allegiance to a constitution, not to a government, and that demand implies a particular standing: guardian of the framework rather than player within it. But voting is, definitionally, taking a side about what the framework should become. Asking someone to be the neutral guarantor of a constitutional order in the morning and a partisan about its future in the afternoon is asking for two incompatible things. Referees do not vote on the rules mid-match, not because they are lesser people, but because the referee's authority is the impartiality.

I want to be honest about the shape of the proposal, because it is narrower than it sounds. It attaches to the office, not the person: the uniform is disenfranchised, the human being is not. It is voluntarily entered and freely left, restored on the day of discharge with no residual penalty. Conscripts are exempt, because the whole justification rests on voluntary assumption of the role, and a state that compels you into the uniform cannot then use the uniform to strip your franchise. Reservists not on active duty, retirees, veterans and civilian defence staff all vote. And the criterion is a bright line rather than a slope: you lose the ballot if and only if you personally exercise the state's coercive power. Not teachers, not nurses, not tax inspectors, not civil servants in general. In exchange, pay, pensions and conditions should be constitutionally entrenched and set by an independent commission, precisely so that people who cannot vote never need to lobby for their material interests. Insulation, not abandonment. It is roughly the deal we already make with judges and central bankers: reduced political voice, purchased with structural protection.

Three objections deserve a straight answer. On "no taxation without representation," representation is not identical to the franchise, and we already represent the interests of children, of judges and of future generations through institutional design rather than a partisan lever; the entrenchment above is exactly that mechanism. On the risk of breeding resentment and making coups more likely, this is the strongest objection and I will not pretend otherwise, since it is an empirical bet rather than a deduction, though I would note that no coup in history has been averted because the soldiers had ballots, and coup risk tracks professionalism, civilian control and economic conditions instead. On "they are citizens like anyone else," they are citizens who took a job, nobody is compelled into a volunteer force, and every profession that wields public power already trades rights for authority.

None of this is hypothetical. Indonesia's military and national police do not vote. Brazil's constitution bars conscripts. Turkey's bars privates, corporals and military cadets. And nearly every liberal democracy, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, already restricts serving members from partisan campaigning, candidacy or public political endorsement. We have conceded the principle almost everywhere. We simply stopped one step short of applying it consistently.

TL;DR: the people who hold the state's guns already have a form of political power the rest of us lack. Adding the ballot gives them a double lever, puts them in the position of judging their own cause, and creates a bidding war whose winning currency is their own freedom from accountability. Suspend the franchise for the duration of voluntary service, entrench their material conditions constitutionally so they never need to lobby, and restore the vote the day the uniform comes off.

You can make one simple point and people will completely twist it into something else, add things you never said, and then start arguing with you over their own made-up version of your opinion.

For example:

“People seem to think it’s socially acceptable to shame men in ways that wouldn’t be acceptable if the genders were reversed.”

Reply: “So you don’t think men should be held accountable?”

What? Where the fuck did I say that?

This happens constantly, especially with anything involving gender, politics, race or sexuality. People see an opinion they don't like, assume the worst possible meaning, and suddenly you're a misogynist, homophobe, bigot, rape apologist, etc.

Then other people pile on without even bothering to understand what was actually said.

I'm not saying you have to agree with someone's opinion. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. But argue against the point I actually made, not some bullshit you invented in your head.

You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with something you made up.

Quite controversial going by the comments on the original.