dimreepr

Nope, size is imaterial unless we're discussing Godzilla v King kong,,,

I'd agree, when did I say otherwise? Maybe that's your cultural bias, assuming a powerful male is violent.

The problem is, sexual maturity comes with a drive to provide for the children, which bleeds into/from the culture, i.e. the most powerful male available, is the most desirable. Our culture confounds that drive with a moral imperative to protect the children from themselves, but a nebulous definition of a child, it's further confused by our natural bias towards plenty/money equals power, so the money maker's are the most desirable. It's ultimately anecdotal evidence for each girl to know, and each man to justify.

Why?

A whole, in some cases, legal industry is built around it. There's anecdotal evidence of young teenage girls, that are naturally attracted to the sex industry, Tracy (something) is famous in the porn film industry (70's 80's IIRC) bc she was 15 and lied about her age to get a part, no doubt there's a study or two that confirm that. The only issue here, is the level of coercion involved, with the caveat that there's money to be made. Just to be clear, I'm not in any way trying to defend "the perp" or devalue the claims of the victim's; due process is the only means to examine the caveats fully and fairly, if only money wasn't involved... 🤑

There is no shortcut to understanding and AI is the proof... If we assume that AI knows everything, then it's easy to prove that it doesn't understand what it knows... 🤔

Thanks guy's for all the answer's (nice link @MigL)... But the question, assuming one winner, is the difference between buying a ticket or not. I see it as 1 degree of separation (50:50), as in not buying a ticket doesn't mean you won't subsequently, be in possession of one. So given the probability of winning is very large, one toss of the coin at such an early stage of the equation, wouldn't be all that significant in my choice "to pay a voluntary tax on my optimism"...

There's a big difference between a legal technicality and a moral obligation, like intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. If a young girl offered one sex, then it could be argued that one is innocent of the intent to harm; just that one got caught up in one's hormone's. On the other hand, how do we know that she wasn't groomed? One account is believable, two accounts are suspicious many accounts are damming.

The national lottery is currently running an ad campaign (It could be you), trying to persuade us to buy a lottery ticket. It got me wondering if the odds were 'significantly' different, if I don't buy a ticket? It's math above my pay grade, so feel free to work out the number's for me. 🙂

I think so.

OK,but please explain why I'm mistaken?

Probably a stupid question, but doesn't time effectively stop from the POV of the observer at the event horizon?

If he's dead,, why are you wasting our time, trying to defend a man, whom you can't possibly know to be innocent?

Your describing a functioning democracy, all be it a terrifyingly binary knife edge ATM, but what it's not, is a hidden authority; bc of those pesky journo's.

We can't, imagine a two dimensional character living in the clock, it can only say cuckoo when the big hand changes to being fully erect. 😉