Phi for All

I completely disagree with you about this, and it's tragic that so many seem to forgive the behavior because it didn't involve kidnapping? I think more harm is done when people ignore the women who have come forward with testimony showing Epstein was indeed a "real pedophile". Ignoring all those women shows an overall misogynistic bias, which has always tainted everything men try to accomplish, especially in science. The male perspective is forced on us at every turn, and I think the negative impacts are showing up in the revelation of the files. That Pam Bondi is Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell?

I particularly dislike the perspective that these children knew what they were getting into and were simply greedy. This is also part of the cult methodology, to diminish and blame the victim.

Consent laws protect children in these instances, or are supposed to, unless the men are shielded by other men who see nothing wrong with having sex with children.

Oh, yes, the atomic physicist retired from the Naval Observatory pointing out errors to the guy who makes up mathematical symbols and uses AI to claim others are incompetent. It's been so thrilling from the sidelines!

With all the bullshit his whole cabinet commits on the daily, we need to use Article II, Section 4 to impeach, remove, and convict the whole lot of them for high crimes & misdemeanors. We know there's been bribery, and there is evidence TFG passed NATO secrets to Putin, so treason at the highest level is also there. We don't want Vance, we don't want Johnson. The rest of the succession list is equally horrific, so we need ALL of them booted and sentenced, including that walking anal polyp Stephen Miller. We need to hold them all up to future generations as abominations to humanity.

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working. I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious". And none of this supports the statement you made that God is a way of removing subjectivity. In fact, your arguments seem to confirm that gods are practically the epitome of subjective thinking.

So this whole idea is supernatural, not science, not in any way?

I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god. Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.

The behavior bears a strong resemblance to Oppositional Defiance Disorder in children, except it's happening in adults. Adults in positions of authority.

Quite the opposite, actually. Light is a symbol for capital T Truth and goodness in the Bible. It's also used to judge people and determine whether they deserve to be tortured for eternity. It represents the presence of the Abrahamic god, to the point where nothing good can happen in the shadows, even though shadow doesn't exist without light. None of this has any scientific basis. Truth is subjective, always has been. Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.

You can't really call it leadership when he quite obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He just told ConocoPhillips there's no windmills in China when the company has been working on Chinese wind energy generation for some time now, and China is the world leader in wind power right now.

In excess? I think when the OP said "a lot of medication", they meant "many medications on the market", not an excess of one. Or are you claiming the dosages are excessive in general?

I don't think of it as the medications having side effects. The meds are designed to do what they do for the majority of patients. It's the patients who have differing issues and physiologies. Their bodies function slightly differently from one another, or react in varying ways, so the meds still do what they're supposed to, but some folks experience "side effects". Some of these meds list a dozen or more possible side effects, and I'm betting almost nobody gets them all. Perhaps in the future we'll have diagnostic techniques that can prescribe a more precise, consequence-free form of medication. Socialized medicine would be perfect for this, since for-profit healthcare capitalizes on side-effects and cheap pharmaceuticals.

The rule "I before E, except after C" has been disproven by science.

He has to break his promise not to start any new wars so he can break his promise about releasing the Epstein files.