If things are innocent and you aren’t letting your 10yo run the streets, you should be able to not just have an idea if it’s innocent and appropriate- but also help contextualize and guide them. Explain to them basic concepts of romance and respect and the more high concept “gentle” aspects of romance like how to treat others and how to expect to be treated- not to be a door mat or a selfish partner. That the heart of another comes with responsibility and reward, and that if they can’t see both they aren’t ready for more and should wait until they understand. Stuff like that.

In my opinion, 10 is quite young for a relationship in general. But- to be fair, some people are “too young” at 20 or 30 or 40 to be mature enough for a relationship. It all depends on the individuals like most things. Also- I may be wrong, but in general I envision a relationship between kids that age to be not much more than a couple 5 year olds “playing house.” Sort of a “ok. You’re my boy friend/girlfriend now..” “ok. What do we do?” “Well... you have to text me and we have to give each other presents...” that sort of thing. Kids have access to technology we didn’t, and most of us sure didn’t have access to porn at that age like most kids do. Kids also seem to move faster earlier than we did too- but I think that like many things at such a young age that it’s critical parents and adults pay attention.

Japanese atrocities in WW2 go deep. Way deeper.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Like the Germans- we pardoned many of those responsible in exchange that they share their research. Many were given government or high ranking corporate jobs in the US, and many things we enjoy everyday cake from that research. The Allies also did some horrible things in the war. Nothing quite on the same scale- but it was a total war, and a brutal one. Many countries including the US have largely hidden or erased the shameful parts of their pasts and instead tried to focus on heroism and the “good” things they did in the war. Children educated in any one country generally receive bias and slanted accounts- with some countries like China being particularly bad on revisionist history. We must never forge. What everyone did in the war. Good and bad. It was the absolute best and worst of humanity.

Speaking for America: It’s actually very easy. If you ever throw an event- or have attended one like a concert, carnival, motor sports event or race, etc. Most places and most insurance companies for the event require an ambulance and or medical tent on site (depending on venue etc.) If you notice most ambulances have a logo on the side. That’s the company that owns the ambulance. Just like you pay for a ride in an ambulance you can just rent the thing out. It would likely be cheaper for something like this (depending where you live) to rent from some sort of company that provides for films etc since you don’t need a real one or EMTs.

Not to mention the other factors. How do you verify that both adults were of legal age and legally capable of consent? How do you ensure that these duels do not cause harm to persons or property other than those involved? I’m not all out saying it’s a no for me- but to be a “yes” I would need many specific questions answered about rules of duels, ID verification, how to insure duels don’t involve coercion, where can duel challenges be made and under what circumstances? Where can duels be held? Is betting allowed? Duels for profit? How does one protect the desperate from exploitation? What about emancipated minors?

Say that you provide food while they grow their crops and none of the things I mention in my other post happen and they develop mass agriculture without issues. Ok. So now the mortality rates start to drop. With steady food the population steadies or booms. But does a country that can’t feed itself have the infrastructure for all those people? Can it educate and clothe and house and enforce law and provide medical care to all those people? Can they all have jobs to afford the things they need and buy food? Now they must develop all that too, and instead of doing so organically they must rush to do so ahead of the problems that a growing and well nourished population creates. How can a government that can’t pay to feed its people provide those changes? How can people who can’t feed themselves pay taxes to fund the government? High unemployment and rising population with limited opportunity is usually a recipe for crime and violence WITHOUT an overstretched government in the mix.

Such god nature’s charity often has a hidden price. In an above post I elaborate in greater detail- but some examples include programs which bring clothes to underdeveloped nations. Sure- people few good their “trash” clothing is going to a good cause- but local textiles and clothing industries take economic hits and then those people can’t stay open or provide for their families. It’s great to build houses for those in need- but then local craftsmen and tradespeople take the hit, and an influx of money to support and supply industries drives up prices and can create shortages for locals. There are all manner of pros and cons to any intended good deed. The unforeseen ripples which can improve lives and destroy them. Look at home even. Lottery winners and those who are on “transformation” shows for self or home, car, life, etc often find themselves worse off after the windfall than before. To abruptly make huge changes to a life or a place has huge consequences.

If all it took was hard work we wouldn’t have mega celebrities. People want to see Keanu Reeves, not someone like him and often times not even someone who is an objectively better actor. They don’t cast block busters on pure talent or drive. Tons of indies and “fresh casts” have shown actors who will put in the same work and give amazing performances with less perks and less money- a harder work day for less. Hard work does not now or has it ever equaled success. It is a single component that generally improves ones odds.

Because at the end of the day what your maximum capabilities are, your talents, your gifts, those are different for everyone. As are the little circumstances and breaks that allow you to get ahead. Those doors aren’t open for everyone. Right place, right time, right preparation, right personality. If hard work was an instant means of success more than half the blue collar workers and below middle class families in America would be wealthy. Hard work is usually a necessary component of overcoming obstacles to success and honing a trade or skill set. It can make up for advantages you lack. But you also must be trained or able to recognize opportunity and seek it out. You must posses knowledge and skills to get ahead. Most companies have tons of skilled workers but one CEO- and something put them there that wasn’t just hard work.

Does every single person who works their hardest make it after all? And if he wasn’t born with that voice and a talent for acting- would he have been successful in the industry? That argument sells short every single person who has ever worked their butt off to get something and not made it, and it fails to factor in that he DID happen to be born with a certain voice and charisma. Some people can take singing lessons or dancing or acting lessons their whole life and not ever be considered good or become professional. So it isn’t so simple as “work hard and you too can make it...” Morgan Freeman isn’t a grocery clerk or even a lawyer. He’s an actor. That’s like an NFL Star saying that if you practices as much as them you’d be good. If that’s true and with billions up for grabs why didn’t more NBA players just “try harder” to be as good as Jordan etc?

I have no doubt he worked hard. Hundreds or thousands more people a year tour or make a trip to Hollywood to be discovered. Many work multiple jobs, take classes, do networking events, and yet never make it in entertainment (or whatever their profession.) people sacrifice everything they have and pour all they can into dreams that don’t come true. And some people are discovered at a mall or do one audition and land a break out role. I have no doubt Morgan Freeman worked damn hard. He also would have faced resistance in his time because of his race. So then- does that mean that every black man who worked hard and didn’t make it just didn’t work hard enough?

Put it on with a roller if you want. Use eyeliner as lip stick and put fake eyelashes on your knuckles if it makes you feel good. To each their own. Even if I were single the truth is I don’t have to find everyone on earth attractive- but it would be nice if everyone on earth could feel attractive. Most of the time women aren’t putting on make up for other people they are doing it for themselves. Everyone is attractive to someone- so you just gotta be who you are. Not everyone is going to like your style or your look and that’s fine as long as you don’t expect them to. For our parts- if someone doesn’t ask we likely don’t need to tell them what we think about their looks.

... well, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out. If your father steals my fathers car and your father then passes that car down to you- while my father loses his job and my family becomes poor and I have no car to be given- is it right for you to turn around and tell me that you had no involvement in the theft? You are innocent and didn’t ask for my stolen car. You didn’t steal it. But can you then with a straight face say to me: “work harder and get your own car.” If we imagine ourselves in this situation and how we would feel, I think that we would all agree that we would feel that person was being a jerk, and that ot was not right.

Thanks @ewqua. Some people don’t seem to understand that especially when talking about something complex and nuanced, it is usually prudent to be as clear as possible and give as much information to support and inform the thought process a conclusion was made on as possible. I agree with you 100% on your other points as well. History shaped the present, and that history holds oppression and subjugation. Many people are simply born into circumstances beyond their control. The fact a person may not have even been alive when racism was more open and severe or didn’t participate actively in that history doesn’t mean that they don’t reap the benefits or consequences. It’s all too common to hear people say that those impacted negatively should work to fix their circumstances. While we should all try and improve- if neither party is responsible for history but one party benefits from it and another suffers from it..

The simple facts we can agree on hopefully are: 1. that all humans are inherently equal. No singular quality makes any one group “better” than another. 2. All people deserve the chance to live their lives as close to how they desires as possible so long as they do not or minimally as possible infringe upon others rights to do so.

It’s a historical imperative. When blacks became free and equal under law, they still faced many or in some places all of the restrictions they did when they were not considered human by the same definition as whites under law. Some of these battles were still being fought a generation later in places where people refused to recognize the rights of others. The “basic” human solution to such conflicts is war- the bigots of the world and the accepting could fight to the death until the issue was resolved by the eradication of all non like minded people. This has been deemed not acceptable for a society. So instead we must compel people to follow the basic humanitarian principals laid down for society. Not to control their thoughts or feelings- but to ensure their actions are as unbiased as practical with regards to the basic nature of human beings.

@vitklim- beyond ideals of noble intent though, the truth is that some people are more in danger of facing certain threats than others, not out of genetic predisposition, not out of consequence of their personal life choices in any direct sense, but simply by nature of discrimination against who they are. So we created protected classes- based on fundamental aspects of a group which have been shown to make them targets. Age, sex, race, etc. these are all legally protected classes. You are not required to give special consideration to these classes unless you consider treating them fair and evenly as special consideration.

Who will tech them how to use and keep up the machines, the practices and processes of mechanized agriculture? While they learn and prepare the soil- what will they eat? How do you know that the powers that be won’t just sell the equipment or trade or for weapons and military supplies or for the whims of a ruling party or family? How can you ensure the security of the equipment or the farm site, the food produced- how can you say that the conflicts and issues which led to such a state of affairs where this place doesn’t even have a basic ability to provide food are stable enough that such a program can succeed?

In these cases it is seldom cut and dry and usually any good that comes from whatever action is offset by bad. For instance if you supply machines for agriculture- and no infrastructure exists who will keep them running? When they break who will eat the parts? How will thy stay fueled and with fluids and consumables like tires? When neighbors see these tools or see the food from these tools- what happens if they decide to take them and you just put a target on this nations back? What if local farmers who can’t keep up with the machines, or neighbor in countries who’s economies might be devastated by the effects of mass agriculture suddenly developing in their neighbor? What when they say “you ruined MY county, how will you help us?”

But it usually a little of both. A damned if you do and damned if you don’t- and as has happened many times before, there is usually little or nothing stopping a warlord from seizing the relief shipments anyway. Some will claim that makes sense- the government or agency in power would have responsibility for disturbing such relief and handling logistics- others would say its an excuse to rob the people of food and demand loyalty through starvation. If you intervene- whichever political side experiences any ripple effect negatively will claim you shouldn’t be involved and that your good deeds are hurting. If you sit by and watch people starve you’ll create as many or more people who criticize that you should have helped- and ala “prime directive” they will claim that your “noble intentions” to not meddle since you can’t foresee how it goes are easy to have when your people aren’t dying. That the price of your “enlightened ethics” are people dying that you could save.

Or in many cases- providing temporary relief intended to feed the population and not the armies of warlords and the elite, which is perishable and this can be withheld in response to human rights violations or distributing the food to troops while letting the general population starve, or in cases like in Africa, intentionally starving an ethnic group to death as a way to commit genocide- vs giving a warlord or military junta the means to supply their armies with a consistent supply of food reaped by peasant slave labor thereby giving their forces an advantage over neighbors and allowing them to destabilize the region while consolidating power.

I am calm. But thank you for your concern.

To be fair- I imagine that the statistics vary place to place and based off of wether one “averages” a state, country, or world occurrence. But she could still be wrong- I’m no expert on the matter. But I do agree with your overall sentiment that this is half cocked ignorance at best- I just wanted to be fair to her in saying we don’t know precisely where her data is from, when, or who it represents.

I have to agree it sounds out of character to the president. He would be very unlikely to invite poor people in to his home or feed them. You need to pay him to get into Mar a Lago and the poor can’t afford it. I would believe he invited investors to his castle and set it on fire. He’s notoriously “good” at “taking care” of those who invest in his projects. Or maybe over principled employees. And I could see him having an underling invite poor people or journalists to say... a YMCA or museum or something and then burn it down. But that’s still extreme. He’d likely just censor and speak over and deny they existed at all while calling anyone with proof they did a phony and a liar.

Mussolini’s Grand daughter was outraged at the tweet, called Carrey a bastard, and went on a tweet spree asking why Carrey didn’t paint various atrocities of the United States. Carrey did not reply to that string, and in the meantime people have been tweeting pictures and messages to Mussolini’s grand daughter about how their ancestors had fought in WW2 to liberate Europe from Mussolini and those who “were like him.” As well as other support for Carrey and others posting outrage against Carrey. So it’s just a standard twitter political feud thing that happened recently.