I’d keep a container of water close and dip to cool. Maybe a quick hit with a grinder to make the next part faster. Then patience and tedium as I sand through the metal prongs. Again, don’t need to get all of them. Unlike a high speed tool or cut off wheel skill is still needed but a low speed drum can sand through metal (it can take patience) and if you “kiss” you skin it often leaves no marks or just some tiny scratches. You generally have to leave it in contact a while or really be using force to actually hurt yourself.
So I might try those out personally. I do not recommend them to others.

In fact the more extreme conservatives reject and express hostility to higher education and especially to education which makes information available.
So take it how you will on that one, the jury is out, but based on points one and two we can see that if those two arguments, there is inherently more stock to be placed in the arguments of those who have an education and exposure to different types of people and experiences unless the matters being discussed fall into the field of expertise and fit specifically the conditions by which the less diverse and generally less educated group are experts in.

Long ago society’s Jr higher education tended to be much more conservative and much more restrictive. In those tiles many notable conservative thinkers came from these institutions and were common in everyday life. That said- as education became less restrictive and less limited to certain classes and ethnic/racial groups, we started to see the association become much stronger between liberal thought and higher education. This argument holds that the natural outcome of placing a person who values human rights and has the intelligence to qualify for higher education in a position where they learn and experience different things that they would naturally take on certain ideas that are often deemed “liberal.”

Likewise, you’re probably more likely to find “conservatives” living in the high cost New York downtown set than liberals, who often live in small towns around the area or in Connecticut and other nearby states. So the idea that “small town America” is full of conservatives and such is misleading. We often use it as short hand for rural or provincial people who are often conservative- but that just isn’t the case.
What we do often dance around and sometimes it is literally a talking point, is the liberal bias often tied to higher education. Some argue higher education indoctrinates people to liberal thinking or that the nature of higher education means liberals are disproportionately represented at these institutions and the culture and curriculums reflect that. Another popular argument is that… education tends to impart a degree of what meant would consider liberal thinking unless those education systems are specifically built to exclude different types of people and thought.

Now let’s discuss the third problem- the problem of “small towns.” The world is full of small towns. This meme and the phrase “small town” implies a rural, generally conservative meaning- but many- perhaps most of the “liberal elites” don’t come from places like San Francisco or Los Angeles- they live in one of the hundreds of small towns- some with 5 digit or less populations- littering the deserts and mountains and coasts of California. These towns are often within an hour or less of these major cities where these people often work and play.

Flaw two is that universities often and generally represent students and even teachers from diverse backgrounds, from all over the country and the world. Different economic strata, upbringings, life experiences.. Soooo… again- you’re implying a comparison between a diverse group of people from different parts of the world and different upbringings reaching a unified conclusion to a group of people who share very similar backgrounds and upbringing from the same place and… those two things are equivalent.
So we have two problems. We are basically saying if the majority of the worlds doctors agree that eating vegetables is good for you but the majority of the worlds auto mechanics say it isn’t- that we should take the opinions of both the same since they are both insular groups. AND, we are basically saying that if a group made up of very different people reach the same conclusion that is as biased as a group of similar people reaching the same conclusion.

Granted you can learn a lot without school, and often what you learn is specific to your life circumstances. Functional knowledge based on experience. If your experience is limited to a certain area… well… I’ll put it this way, anyone can be good or bad at things but who do you want doing your heart operation if you have to pick one, an average medical student or an average small town citizen? Who do you want doing your taxes, a certified accounting graduate or a random small town citizen?
Sure SOMEONE in the town might have some gift- but if we pick a random certified tax accountant and a random small town person- which of those odds are better for you?

But this isn’t that. Comparing certain slurs used against “black people” and certain slurs used against white people is less like comparing the Holocaust to the rape of Nanking than comparing the rape of Nanking to the audiences who were at the theatrical release of Rob Schneider’s “The Animal.” One of those things is very clearly not like the other.

but yeah. Some are worse than others. Some carry far darker pasts and as far as words that hurt, have caused far far more hurt. On a certain scale we just can’t compare wrongs. The Holocaust or the rape of Nanking? By the numbers one is far greater. We can argue- pick the people who had the “worst” or “best” possible experiences and outcomes in each and try to use those, or the “worst.” We can try to compare a percentage of deaths to total population or say that sheer numbers are enough to declare a choice. So many things one might argue but they are both horrible things of unimaginable scale and wrongness. We don’t need to compare. We can’t compare.

Buuuut… sorry revisionist historians. You don’t have 400 years of global examples linking that word to the ruination and suffering of generations of whites who were excluded from having human rights, participating in society or even in being considered human, under a society and language where such words were common and quasi universal.
I’m going to go ahead and say no one should be slurring each other, race is particularly a dumb one as it is an entirely man made concept that is vague and cultural and not only as a generality fails to reflect diversity within a group identified as like,” but doesn’t even take into account cultural and ethnic factors or other circumstances that differ between people who are superficially similar enough to share the label. So they are all bad slurs,

Now, I hope you’d have the intelligence to realize how perhaps a word that for about 400 years has been used in a context from other races to demean, degrade, dehumanize, show hate, contempt, condescension to an entire group- a word that is intrinsically intertwined with slavery, murder, branding and mutilation of humans, rape, subjugation, discrimination, social and personal destruction- such a word Carrie’s ALOT of baggage to it. The meaning of the word is not relevant, the context of the word and history are. Now, I’m sure you’ll find some white folk who have been insulted, perhaps excluded, by the word cracker. Dig deep enough you’ll even find perhaps a few examples of deaths that occurred while men screamed “cracker” or such and it was the last words some poor fellow heard in this life, words of hate in a hateful tone or perhaps spoken with the giddy glee of a twisted soul enjoying their race based murder.

But it goes deeper than that because behind the power of a word is its history. So slurs, insults, “curse words” generally aren’t nice or good to say. To anyone sure, but contextually some are worlds than others. Someone who has struggled with weight and teasing their whole life is likely going to be far more hurt than someone with a confident body image if you call them weight based insults. Someone who has lost a child to miscarriage probably has a greater personal reaction to jokes and insults about dead babies and infertility.

Like so many concepts and words that cross cultural bounds and need translated, there isn’t a really “perfect” way to translate lolicon. Many argue that lolicon doesn’t carry inherent context of sexual interest, which.. I’m not going there today… but regardless of wether that’s total shit or just partial shit, there isn’t really English concepts or words that relate to things like moe which are involved in such descriptions. So without an entire lesson in linguistics and culture and such, pedophile seems a fitting translation. Understand that if you sit the average native English speaking person down and went through the entire process of educating on context what “Loli” means- they’d likely blink a few times and say “so a pedophile?” Anyway.
So I’m going to back the translation even if it loses some nuance.

That said I will grant that the word pedophile does fail to convey the cultural context. In Japan it isn’t like “lolicons” are generally loved and accepted by the population at large or that is is something you likely want your coworkers or family to know about, and in recent years there has been increasing discussion and a mown towards rejection of lolicon being even acceptable or tolerated as a fringe niche as Japan has made changes and continues to discuss changes to their laws concerning depictions of minors and even age of consent laws and such. So overall a “lolicon” in Japan in general wouldn’t be met with the same social response as a pedophile in most of America, but they generally wouldn’t be treated as lightly as a “geek” or such either.

There are obvious differences between those ages, a 15 year old and 19 year old are, all other things equal, generally considered in the same stage of development, they are just at opposite ends of the start and finish of the stage respectively.
So it may be imprecise linguistically to translate lolicon to pedophile since lolicons can be pedophiles or ephebophiles or hebephiles etc. that said, these other words aren’t common use in English and I would argue that in translating the concept of what os being referred to, pedophile would be the closest common English word that would translate the general idea clearly to the average English speaker.

Note two things.
1. Ephebophilia Doesn’t ONLY apply to those under the age of consent, those attracted to 18 and 19 year olds for example for this category. More on this in a moment.
2. The ages given are approximate. What is critical in the definition of these terms is the state of development of the subject of attraction. Pedophiles like prepubescents (children) and Hebephiles like pubescents (those in puberty)
and Ephebophiles like adolescents (young adults).
Note too that these phases are approximate and so can be their onset. There are debates such as wether adolescence is even real or a made up stage etc.
These two notes however paint the picture. There are specific emotional and physical milestones that correlate to certain stages of development and each listed type of person has an attraction to those who are in those states of development. Within each group you can find those who may have preference for earlier or later stages- for example 15-19, while usually

It would be very easy to seem ungrateful or to generate bad feelings if you rejected their offers wether you wanted them of not.
Point of fact if one was socially anxious enough one might pretend to take the food and then throw it out at work etc. so the neighbor didn’t know and then eventually make up a story about a big promotion and pay the $200 to show them you don’t need their food and hopefully get them to direct their attention elsewhere while Mai ring their illusion they had done some good deed.

Started off framing their actions one way and then framed them another way later on.
I also would note that giving the man food not knowing that he needs it but because you don’t want to waste it is… odd? Imagine you open your door and there are bags of infant clothes and a 90” 1000lb old school flat screen Tv and a note saying “I didn’t need this stuff but didn’t want to waste it so I gave it to you.” Do you want a giant OG projector flat screen Tv? This is common in relationships between wealthier and less wealthy people and charity like canned food drives. People essentially drop off garbage under the assumption that if someone has things so rough that their garbage must be valuable to that person. The giver gets to get rid of something they don’t want and feel good about it regardless of wether the item is actually useful or wanted by the receiver. Of course it would put one in a socially awkward position if a neighbor kept brining you food you didn’t want.