fallaffel comments

This is probably the most interesting story I've ever read on this website.

Now working for Centivax, Friede stopped self-inflicting himself with venom in 2018 to save the firm from liability issues.

But he hopes to get bitten by snakes again in the future.

"I do miss it," he said.

Lol

Some parts of the article seem contradictory. Regarding physical health:

"Married women, on the other hand, are not better off physically when compared to single women"

Ok, sounds interesting. But then a couple sentences after...

"Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging determined that married and single women were virtually identical in terms of overall physical health at any age."

Wait what?

Sounds like the script for a B-movie villain. Lol.

The days of the US as a global hegemon are coming to an end. It can no longer do anything to stop the unstoppable rise of the new global power in progress. The Century of the Chinese Dragon is about to begin.

New world order coming !!..

The future will be RED !!!..

Thank you for clarifying your belief. It's a bit narrow-minded to me, but at least I understand it now, so I really will stop. :)

So I guess you really do believe that poor people are selfish to have children, because they should realize that their children are destined to be miserable. Otherwise I have no idea what we're arguing about. It's a pretty bleak interpretation, and I hope it's not a widespread one.

And I am proving with argument this action is unselfish, because it results in the prevention of negative consequences thanks to not prioritizing the person own benefits.

I'm not saying this action is unselfish, although you keep repeating it. I'm just saying the opposite is also unselfish. I'd prefer people don't judge every poor parent as "selfish". Obviously we disagree, so I'll stop here.

Because the one making that decision is a real person that exist and it is considering the repercussion of his actions and decisions. This is not exactly high level logic, A real person is refraining from an action that if done would result in a miserable person. This action is then justifiably called unselfish.

So if the person that doesn't exist doesn't have human rights, how can it be deemed as selfish to have him or her?

This is something that happens routinely all over the world every day, pretending a person that does not exist somehow deserves human rights is deeply irrational, that would make it understandable that you can't find how to argue for it, you are recognizing it makes no sense to hold this position even if this is the fundamental part of why you find it unacceptable that people can stop having children because they don't want to be selfish.

These are selfish expectations of the child, which is different. Anyone can have them, no matter their level of wealth. My point is it's irrational to claim someone is being selfish merely for having a child, just like it's impossible to claim they are being unselfish, because we have no understanding of the unborn child's preference.

Reducing benefits to the purely economical aspect is very myopic and would indicate more about yourself than the problem, people can be selfish because they want company, the status of being a parent, the safety of having someone to support them in their old age, etc. etc. Being self centered do not mean only trying to get money.

"Prevent that situation" means preventing a child from existing. If you think you (or any parent) can make this kind of judgement call for the unborn child, then there's nothing to argue about.

But you can' argue for this claim, you just repeat it, any rational person can easily see a situation where the child is going to have difficulties and hardships and decide not to be selfish and prevent that situation from happening.

I'm saying that it's impossible for a parent (or anyone else) to know whether a child is better off not being born. As long as a parent tries their best to bring up a child (no matter their financial state), having one shouldn't be considered selfish.

Aside from parents who need workers for their farm, i cannot imagine anyone who would believe having a child is a good financial return on investment, lol. Many people carelessly have kids, but I can't imagine many do selfishly.

First, as long as the person is doing it something mainly to benefit without caring for the consequences for others it becomes selfish, that is the only requirement, to do things focused only on the self and if others have difficulties because of that is of no consequence (for the parent). There is no "what if" that can negate this, but yes, some of the children do feel it is better not to be born and there are tragic consequences for that.

It might be considered a little irresponsible by some, but you said "selfish", which I disagree with. For it to be selfish, the child would have to be better off not being born(?)... How can you reasonably determine that a child who lacks access to good education would have been better off not being born?

And what I said was that it would be irresponsible, selfish to have a child well knowing that they would be terribly disadvantaged and have extra difficulties, so the quote in the article is correct and justified. You have not demonstrated this to be wrong. Just pretend that not thinking about it or not realizing it (even if clear) makes a person not selfish, in reality you are just explaining how people can make a selfish decision even if they don't realize it.

Yes, you got it now. I'm arguing with what you said, not what the article headline says. If you look, you can see I quoted you...

So I don't understand what the rest of your post is about.

You claimed there is nothing selfish about having a child, yet the quote of the article clearly says this is what justifies the decision of not having a child, are you now arguing you are discussing something completely unrelated to the quote?

Now you're arguing with me about something that I never even mentioned. I don't think deciding not to have a child (whatever your financial status) is a selfish decision.

No, many are just desperate to make a family, ignorant of the possibilities, unreasonably optimistic, etc. etc. But the main point is that when someone make an analysis of their situation and decides that having children would mean not giving the minimum to give them a fair chance to success in life, then they can validly claim their choice is born for a desire not to be selfish. They are the ones that make that determination and just baselessly claiming they are wrong do nothing to refute it.

This is a separate issue. Of course, many selfish people do have children, but having a child is not a selfish thing itself (no matter your financial condition).

Think of another extreme. Do you truly believe that all poor parents are selfish people?

People that have seen selfish people never worrying a bit about their children having terribly difficult lives and still demanding care from them when reaching an old age.

It is certainly not selfish to have kids without being able to pay 10 million yen (or whatever the cost) for the best education... Who would believe that having a child is selfish? It's totally baffling to me, and probably any other parent. There's nothing selfish about taking care of one or more small children 24 hours a day.

Terribly obvious this is not even close to be accurate, someone selfish would not care about supporting a child through college, they would simply have children and if there is not enough money for them to be whatever they want to be as adults then "too bad". This person is simply not irresponsible enough to have children without being able to support them.

How does this stop you from getting married? One step at a time brother.

This sounds like a virtue signaling thing. Japanese universities desperately want these kinds of students already, but cannot get them to apply. Unfortunately a Japanese degree isn't really that beneficial outside Asia.

A normal person watching from the sidelines would want to help the one being bullied (Ukraine), rather than just watch them get pounded on. Why not act like a normal person and help Ukraine fight back.

Japan helps other nations because it gives benefits that are more than the costs (good example), or sometimes because it benefits Japanese companies with close ties to the government (bad example). Either way, it's certainly not a selfless act of giving...

Japan helps a lot of other nations.

Now it must focus on itself.

It has to cut down even a little on the budget for the outside and redirect resources towards its own problems.

Russia also attacked Ukraine literally every day before the "peace talks".

yeah after that stupid attack right before the peace talks, sure sounds now like Russia is going to end it,

“it” being Ukraine.

Boring and predictable, but ultimately ineffective. Any attacks by Ukraine are a response to Putin's invasion and war crimes. Russia's "responses" to previous Ukraine attacks didn't stop Russia from being attacked again, so what is the purpose? Better to address the root cause and get out of Ukraine.

Not a bad idea, depending on the limits set and how emissions are tracked.

The Japanese government has no way of knowing whether you actually gave up your other citizenship or not, so many keep both nationalities. It's a "look the other way" kind of regulation.

Children born in Japanese international marriages have to decide by 22 which nationality to take.

The world is looking forward to a future without these two criminals (one a war criminal, one a felon).

I wish there was a way to bet with climate deniers over whether these kinds of predictions will be true or not.

Now sanctions work? I thought we heard the opposite for the last 3 years.

Not really, not about being played, more like Trump tried to give this guy an off ramp peacefully, if he doesn’t want that, sanctions are next and Russia really can’t handle more sanctions, they would have serious tragic repercussions for his already strapped country.

This approach wouldn't push down the price of rice on the shelves, which is the intention.

This so-called stockpiled rice, should be distributed without charge, free to the most venerable groups, susceptible to price fluctuation, though a voucher system.

Looks like it was a clickbait headline. In the article, only a single question was asked to the COP secretary about the impacts of US tariffs, and the response didn't even mention the US. C'mon, this is not good reporting.

Trump is almost at the point of realizing what the rest of the world realized in 2022? Until he changes his mind again...

But Japan doesn't want too much cheap foreign rice; it'll make the Japanese agriculture system look bad. So price isn't really important, as long as it's a little lower than the current Japanese prices. Japan might be looking to take some more rice temporarily though from the US and use it as a bargaining chip to reduce Trump tariffs.

Those suggesting lowering tariff should know this. If they do it would be on Australian rice not USA rice and why. 5 continuous years of bumper crop have seen rice price 1/2 in local supermarkets 5 kg of calrose irice s $9 USD.. So wholesale price would be much lower. With Australia cheaper logistic and 70c USD to a AUD $1 and the USA stupid tariff extortion. It is a no brainer to import Australian calrose rice. LOL Another potential market lost the Fascist USA regime.