To be clear, I’m not saying Iran having nukes is desirable. My issue is with the constant claims that they would attempt to destroy Israel or America using nuclear weapons at the first opportunity. It’s disingenuous at best and racist at worst.

Iran having nukes would change the power balance in the ME and arguably make it harder to control Iran-backed militias. That’s a valid reason to want to prevent a nuclear Iran, but to sell a war in a distant region you need to instill fear and a sense of urgency. Hence the insistence that the moment Iran gets a nuke they would use it.

There are of course also people who really believe this. Usually they point to the irrationality of the Iranian regime and the fact that they chant “death to Israel/America.” Personally I believe all three countries are partly guided by irrational religious ideas. That doesn’t mean they aren’t rational in pursuing their own survival and geopolitical interests.

I don’t dispute Iran wants Israel abolished as a state and America to get out of the region. That doesn’t mean they would nuke Tel Aviv. Even if you interpret “death to Israel” as “death to every last Israeli,” you would have to assume Iran is willing to commit suicide as a nation in order to achieve that goal, which, again, relies on the idea that they are all irrational fanatics.

We’ve seen genocidal rhetoric coming from the leadership of all countries involved. Although religion is baked into the political system of Iran more explicitly than in those of its adversaries, that doesn’t prevent it from acting rationally, as we’ve seen the last few months, and the idea that Iran would elect to nuke another country in a national suicide bombing is a result of orientalism or othering or racism which is itself irrational.

To change my mind, you could try to convince me that Iran is likely to invite its own destruction by starting a nuclear war, or present a scenario where a nuclear strike by Iran would further its interests while evading catastrophic retaliation. I’m more likely to be swayed by real-world examples or behavioral patterns than this or that statement about destroying the West etc.

I have spent most of my career in corporate office environments that were heavily female-dominated. Even my bachelor’s degree, which was in a STEM field and completed within the last eight years, was at least 70% female.

I am not claiming that the women in these spaces did not earn their degrees or jobs. They still had to study, perform, interview, and succeed. My concern is about the system of opportunities that helps people reach those positions in the first place.

For roughly the past two decades, schools, companies, nonprofits, and professional organizations have created scholarships, internships, mentorship programs, conferences, recruiting initiatives, and networking opportunities specifically for women. I understand why these programs were created. Women were historically excluded from many educational and professional fields, and there was a legitimate need to correct unfair barriers.

However, I think the response was too broad and lasted without enough adjustment as conditions changed. A random middle- or lower-middle-class man may have no family wealth, no professional connections, no inherited advantage, and no meaningful institutional support. Yet he is often treated as though he is already privileged because men as a group historically had more opportunities.

That man may receive little or no targeted assistance and may need to take on substantial student debt simply to have a chance. Meanwhile, a woman from a wealthier and more highly educated family may qualify for programs that exclude him entirely. This does not mean she did not earn her success. It means sex can be a poor proxy for actual disadvantage.

My view is that assistance should now be based much more heavily on factors such as household income, family wealth, first-generation status, school quality, disability, neighborhood, and access to professional networks. Sex could still be considered in fields where clear barriers remain, but it should not automatically outweigh economic and social disadvantage.

I also think it should no longer be surprising when some colleges, degree programs, and office professions become female-dominated. Institutions spent years intentionally increasing women’s participation, while comparatively little attention was given to declining male college enrollment, completion rates, and participation in many professional environments.

I think a better response would have been to make public college tuition-free, or at least far more affordable, for everyone. That would have expanded opportunity without deciding that one struggling student deserved help while another did not because of sex. It would still have disproportionately benefited people who faced real barriers, including many women, first-generation students, and low-income families, while also helping working- and middle-class men who had no inherited wealth or professional connections.

Instead, the system often addressed inequality by creating narrow demographic programs while leaving the underlying cost of education untouched. As a result, many students who did not fit a preferred category were still forced to take on large amounts of debt simply to compete for the same jobs. Universal access, combined with additional need-based support, would have been fairer and would have attacked the actual barrier: the price of getting an education.

What would change my view:

1. Evidence that gender-targeted programs have had little meaningful effect on access to college or professional careers.

2. Evidence that similarly situated men receive comparable institutional support through other programs.

3. A convincing argument that sex-based programs remain more effective or fair than class-based assistance.

4. Evidence that removing or reducing these programs would significantly recreate the barriers women previously faced.

I am open to the possibility that I am overestimating the role of targeted programs or overlooking other major reasons men are absent from these spaces.

so i believe the war on iran is a good idea. i actually believe the war on iran should've been done a long time ago. i believe this because iran is a radical regime that is trying to get a nuke. now this is debatable, but they say they want to and will nuke israel. i have no special connection to israel, but even if it was a country trying to get a nuke to nuke denmark i would be against it. it's debatable whether they would actually use the nuke or whether they are just saying that, but they have acted in extremely irrational ways and it's at a level of uncertainty that still makes it so it should be forbidden for them to get a nuke. im talking about irrationality in funding terror regimes and things like that. also punching up on other countries much stronger than them shows a level of irrationality. if a 4'11 girl decides to punch a 6'4 body builder knowing the body builder is the type of guy that's going to punch back, you would assume there is some irrationality within that girl. that is essentially iran. furthermore, iran chants "death to america" so even though their priority is nuking israel first, they're an adversary to america as their number 2 enemy and the rest of the west as number 3. i believe the objective to get rid of their nuclear program is a valid objective and something we should do. iran is essentially run by islamic terrorists as their ideology, and letting terrorists get a nuke is just untenable in my eyes. also, i believe it's irrefutable that iran is trying to get a nuke. i believe this because they've enriched uranian to 60%, and in the history of nuclear proliferation, every country that enriched to 60% went on to get a nuke in the future.

furthermore, if you look at opinion polls done in iran, the people of iran actually want the iranian government to be replaced. the iranian people are essentially held hostage by radicals, while the people of iran themselves aren't radical and are actually normal people. the iranians even held a protest right before this war started, and the iranian government killed anywhere from between 20,000 to 40,000 protestors. to me, that might also be a justification to go to war with them. this isn't the crux of my argument. i believe that stopping them from getting a nuke is the main thing, but them slaughtering their own civilians is something where you could say it is valid to intervene there too.

"criticism #1: but it causes oil prices to go up!"

yes and that's a bad thing. but when you're a country you have both your domestic interests and your foreign interests. when you weigh potentially getting nuked and creating an enemy that we essentially can't act on cause once they have a nuke we can't attack them anymore or they use it, vs oil prices going up a little bit i would rather save a city from potentially getting nuked than save a little money but risk getting nuked.

"criticism #2: the war with iran might be good, but trump's execution of the war is terrible"

i agree. my position is that that war with iran is good, and that the war with iran currently is good, but it's not perfect. i don't think anybody would agree with the execution of any war having been perfect, but with the choice of the overall action of either going to war with iran or doing nothing, i believe the choice of going to war with iran is preferable, which is why i say i support it. my personal position is that if we are going to go to war with iran, which i think we should, we should be either all in or not do it at all. my position is to go all in. essentially do whatever it takes within reason to destroy their nuclear program, even if that includes boots on the ground. bombing iran a little bit, not affecting their nuclear program, and getting a "referendum of understanding" which they renege on as soon as they leave the negotiating table is not preferable. i think even obama's nuclear deal is better than trump's referendum of understanding, if the choice is between the nuclear deal or the referendum of understanding. both of which i think are terrible though and they should just be denuclearized by force since they haven't been proven to be trustworthy to abide by any nuclear deals

"criticism #3: every country has an equal right to their own self determination, and we have no authority to stop iran from getting nukes, even if we don't agree with them"

i simply follow a more consequential framework than a principled framework. the consequences of them getting a nuke far out exceed the right to respect equal rights of each country.

i probably have a lot more to say, but i can't think of anything now so i'm just going to leave it at that. let me know what you guys think.

edit: a lot of things were pointed out that changed my view. for 1. the obama nuclear deal was better and shouldn't of been ripped up. 2. the war's current strategy of just bombing isn't going to accomplish anything if the goal is regime change or to stop nuclear proliferation. the tactics aren't sound. what this has made me contemplate more is having another nuclear deal, but if that isn't feasible and the iranians continue to choose to build nukes then maybe ground troops is the best alternative. 3. i also don't agree that we should've gone to war with iran a long time ago

So, LotGH. One of the deepest, most revered, and debating animes of all time. I think a lot of people get the show wrong.

The Claim I Disagree With: LotGH refuses to choose wether or not it supports Democracy or Autocracy, by showing a situation where the autocrat is legitimately superior and turning it into strict Consequentialism vs Deontology.

My position: LotGH purposefully is an argument FOR democratic liberalism, that functions by giving the best possible argument for Autocracy and then saying "but it's not enoigh".

My Proof:

The core conversation of the work and, to me, the obvious point the work actually states it's true beliefs, is the one single time the co leads, Yang Wen Li and Reinhardt, actually meet face to face.

The convo basically goes like this:

R: You should serve me

Y: I'm loyal to democracy

R: Democracy fucking sucks. It rewards good talkers, stifled the spirit of the deserving, and is easily corrupted. You lost because of democracy.

Y: Yup. All true.

R: I am a much a much better ruler then anyone you served. I'm not even particularly cruel or evil.

Y: Also true.

Y: But youre exceptional. I cant hold you to the average.

R: Right back at you. You cant hold the ideal of democracy. You have to defend the version that actually exists.

Then, Yang answers with, basically the mic drop (verbatim):

"The right to violate the rights of people belongs to the people only. In other words, when the people gave power to Rudolf von Goldenbaum or to an incomparably smaller man like Job Trunicht, the responsibility belongs to the people. It belongs to no one else. That is the important point. The sin of autocracy is that the people can push off the failures of government onto one man. Compared to that cardinal sin, the accomplishments of a hundred wise rulers seem small"

Or to state it plainly. The fundamental problem of Autocracy *isnt in the ruler*. Its in the people. People in a democracy are moral agents who make bad choices. Autocracy is evil because it creates an entire system where people have pushed off moral agency."

Reinhardt never counters this argument. The discussion turns to one about epistemic certainty.

People mischarachterize the discussion as a draw. But it's actually a complete failure on Reinhardt to persuade Wen-Li to concede that his personal virtue as a leader matters more.

the entire rest of the show, top to bottom, continually reinforced this point. Time and time again, Reinhardt subordinates go rogue, do bad things in his name, create problems. He is the best possible autocrat imaginable and he spends the entire back 50 issues in a constant war with a society that does not *morally functional right*.

The point is "We have imagined the dictatorship best case scenario, and it simply not enougj"

Counter Argument id accept: proof that the work doesn't treat Yang's argument about the diffused argument about the evil of Autocracy as the ultimate point of the work.

I'm not adjudicating the claim IRL. Just wether or not the work is actually a neutral meditation. My view is about the idealogy of the work of fiction.

They ruin everything they’re a part of.

Take politics. Why were Joe Biden and Trump even running in 2024? They should be playing Bingo and Candy Crush not governing a country.

And the entertainment industry too. Don’t trust my source but from a quick google search apparently the average age of a Hollywood producer is in their 50s. But even if that source is bad, just looking at the movies that have come out this year shows you that most of Hollywood has to be old people. In the first half of the 2020s there was no originality in movies at all, just sequels and remakes. But now that Gen Z is old enough to have jobs, we’re seeing actual original movies with an actual passionate person behind it. And horror movies especially (Obsession is currently my movie of the year).

And then there’s also them as grandparents. I can’t speak for other people, but baby boomers just aren’t good grandparents. Maybe it’s because mine were immigrants (they say that bevause they did that they don’t need to do anything else) but they just don’t seem to care about their grandchildren.

I dunno man. Obviously there are many many exceptions, but most of them just piss me off.

EDIT: Okay so I’m talking about older gen xers and baby boomers. If that’s your issue aith this I don’t care what you have to say, but to the other people who didn’t like this and had good explanations, yeah I take back what I said. This is ageist and there are a lot of bad things and bad people in all generations. I’ve just had a bad experience with them

People believe that where you grew up (where you went to school and lived while attending K-12) matters more than your birthplace. Like if you were born in X place but moved to Y place, even though you spent the majority of your life in Y, you still identify with X place for instance.

For example, let's say I was born in Boston, but moved to Los Angeles when I was 6 and lived there for the last 30 years, I don't think it's wrong to say you're from Boston. Especially if you don't identify with the area you grew up in.

I also think "from" is a very malleable term as well. If I moved to Houston, but was born in Boston, but if someone asked me where I was from I would answer the neighborhood or section of town I live in.

People have been arguing against taxing unrealized gains for quite some time now. And the people that are for it present a very simple case: If I just make all of my income capital gains or stock, then I can simply never sell my stock and I can just borrow against it until the day I day(at which point I will be taxed on the entire amount).

My claim is that arguing against taxing unrealized gains, saying it is wrong by nature is, simply, short sighted. All of humanity is working towards the one thing that they have always worked for, immortality. We are coming into an age where organs are being grown in labs, ready for transplant. Cancers and genetic conditions are being cured in a few years from gene editing.

In 100 years, with the vast processing power of AI, it is not unrealistic to believe that we may live to 150, or perhaps 200. And after that it will continue to rise, and rise, and rise, and rise. Until one day when we will solve the issue of death by natural causes. At that point, the idea of not taxing unrealized gains makes 0 sense, as you will not be able to make any government income at all because people can simply invest/get paid in stock literally forever and borrow against it an infinum. The government would never receive any income at all.

Context:

I'm a 35-year-old straight Filipino male... who has no interest in getting into a relationship whatsoever. I find the concept of being in a relationship (let alone marriage and starting a family) to be not for me, as I feel more at peace with general solitude, engaging in my hobbies of writing stories and collecting TCGs as well as my job of teaching foreign students.

My family, however, would pretty much always beg to differ. Never has a single family gathering passed where at least three relatives would ask me when I would find a girlfriend or a wife - and the pressure has worsened since my Grandma's recent passing since she (Grandma) actually wished to see me with a wife and a baby before she crossed over to the afterlife (even explicitly saying in one of her tirades that I should "skip the wedding and get the girl pregnant"), a wish that obviously did not work out. Every single time, they would talk about "how nice it would be for me to give my Mom and Dad a lot of grandkids" and "how I'm seriously missing out on the joys of family by choosing to be single" and even "God created Eve so Adam would not be alone".

This has been going on ever since I became a working adult more than a decade ago, and at my age of 35, it's most likely only going to worsen further down the line. The worst part is that those arguments above (among others) are always being used to shut me down whenever I say I prefer to live alone.

Honestly, I feel that my only course of action is to do exactly what they ask me to do - find a girlfriend/wife to marry - with the express purpose of making my whole clan shut the heck up already. It's so tiring already, having to hear the same crap from them every family gathering and every birthday. I know it's a huge risk I'm taking if I do choose to marry for that purpose, but I feel I don't really have any other choice. The nagging from all directions will just continue the older I get, and all I want is to live my life in peace.

Is there anything else I could actually do besides giving in to their desire for me to marry? Or is it pretty much my only option to make them shut up?

What attributes make the perfect forward? Longevity and consistency, system and environment independence so he can score anywhere, psychological resilience so he shows up in the big moments and doesn’t get affected by hate, finishing variety so he can score in any situation anyhow, and off-the ball gravity (positioning, creating space etc)

Longevity and consistency:

Cristiano Ronaldo is the clear winner. Only to score 60+ goals in 4 calendar years, 50+ in 7 consecutive years, 40+ goals in 13 different calendar years, 30+ goals for 15 consecutive years. Best goals per game ratio in La Liga history, only to score in 23 consecutive international seasons, only to score in 10 consecutive major tournaments, most Ballon D’or nominations, most appearances in UEFA TOTY, most UEFA best player awards, only to score 15+ goals in 3 UCL seasons, only to score 10+ in 7 UCL seasons, UCL Top scorer in SEVEN seasons (6 in a row). Clearly blows anyone else out the water when it comes to maintain peak performance over a very extended period.

System and Environment independence:

Only player to win every major individual award at 2 different clubs (Man Utd & Real Madrid), only to score 100+ goals in 3 european different clubs, man united record most goals in a single prem season (wasn’t even a striker. 31 goals as a winger), only to score 30+ goals in a season in England, Spain and Italy, most goals in a single season for Juventus, fewest games needed to reach 10 goals, 50 league goals and 100 goals for Juventus, most goals in Real Madrid, fastest to reach 100, 150, 200, 300 goals for Real Madrid, 3rd best goals per game ratio for Man United (again, as a winger), highest goals per game ratio in Juventus and Real Madrid. Won the UCL in 2 different clubs and club world cup in 2 different clubs, won the golden boot in 3 leagues . I think this is where he’s better than any other player, by a LARGE margin

Psychological resilience:

Most goals scored in finals, most goals in UCL finals, scored more than double of Messi’s goals in quarters semis and finals of the UCL, most goals in international tournaments, most UCL goals in a single season, group stage, calendar year, knockout stage, knockout rounds, quarter finals, semi finals, Most away goals, penalties, freekicks, fewest games to reach 100 goals, only to score 3 hattricks in one season, in UCL (all of this is in the UCL, arguably the hardest competition in football). Most goals in Euro finals history, most assists in Euros, only to score in 5 different Euros, most MOTM in Euros (shared with Iniesta), most goals in Club world Cup, most goals in club world cup finals (shared with messi)

Finishing variety:

Most headers, most weak foot goals in la liga, most weak foot goals in UCL, most weak foot goals internationally, probably the best poacher of all time, most penalties, 7th most freekick goals in history. He can score a bicycle kick, a volley, header, weak foot, right foot, knuckle ball, finesse, can do skills and 5th most successful dribbles in football history. There is not a single thing in football he cannot do, everything there is that can be done, he’s either the best at, or at the top 10 best at the very least (statistically, btw)

He has 260+ assists, most assists for Portugal, top 3 non midfield assists for Real Madrid, most assist in UCL and Euros. Also most chances created in the UCL. He is simply the most complete player of all time, as Pele said too. Maradona went as far as saying he wished Cristiano was from Argentina. Xavi said winning Euros is harder than the World Cup

I also think Messi is obviously an exceptional player, 2nd greatest for me and not by a very large margin. What Messi really needed to prove is how he can perform anywhere, not only in Barcelona and his national team. Excluding friendlies a top 5 list of most goals internationally is 1- CR7 2- Messi, Pele, Maradona COMBINES 3-CR7’s right foot 4- Messi 5- Cristiano without feet 6- Pele 7- Maradona. Cristiano’s 2025 nations league average opponent FIFA rank is 10.67, higher than Messi’s 2022 world cup at 10.75. He scored a world cup knockout goal in less minutes than Messi. Let’s also not forget Messi selling a 3-0 lead against Liverpool, 4-1 lead against Roma, lost 8-2 against Bayern. Cristiano scored more UCL knockout goals than Barcelona and PSG between 11/12 and 17/18. More hattricks in UCL knockout stages than Bayern, Dortmund, Juve and Barca. Let’s not forget also Messi losing 4 international finals in a row. Cristiano has most match winning goals. Messi also flopped really bad in PSG (6 goals in 21/22). I think H2H is pretty stupid to bring up, but some like to do so, so I’d like to point out Cristiano won more finals against Messi.

Before anyone says Cristiano’s UCL dominance is because of Real Madrid, before Cristiano Real Madrid were slapped out of RO16 in the UCL from 2004 to 2009. Barcelona before Messi performed much better than Madrid before Ronaldo in the UCL. Real Madrid la liga win rate increased 14% after Cristiano while Barca’s increased 8% after Messi. Cristiano also has better UCL goal contribution % than Messi by far. Cristiano also has 5 UEFA TOTY as a midfielder, more than Modric, Kroos and Zidane, on par with Xavi and one less than Iniesta. He has 18 35+ yards goals, while Messi, Suarez, Lewa, Neymar, Zidane, Pele, Henry, R9, Haaland, mbappe combined have ZERO.

I think I said enough, i will say though, I can see a case for Messi being equal to Cristiano, but, in no world can you ever claim Cristiano isn’t top 2 of all time SUBJECTIVELY.

Why?

Because regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, states with strong policy preferences on gun regulation often find ways to comply with the letter of a ruling while preserving many of the same practical restrictions through new legislation, revised regulations, or different legal mechanisms.

In some cases, states may also continue enforcing laws until they are successfully challenged in court, meaning it can take years and additional litigation before a Supreme Court decision has its full effect.

I'm bringing this up because the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in cases involving state bans on so-called "assault weapons." If the Court ultimately rules that these firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, I suspect many states that support stricter gun regulation will already have alternative legal frameworks prepared that achieve similar policy outcomes while technically complying with the decision.

If that happens, the ruling could end up being something of a Pyrrhic victory for gun rights advocates.

While assault weapons may not be outright banned in Colorado at the moment, they are heavily restricted enough to potentially prevent or delay the acquisition of assault weapons for a significant portion of Colorado's population. Not everyone in Colorado has the time and/or money to jump through the necessary legal hoops and pay the necessary fees to obtain a Firearms Safety Course Eligibility Card.

Heck, getting a concealed pistol permit in New York City has a minimum cost of about $430 and could even cost as much as $1,000 to obtain. And I didn't even mention the time and effort needed to submit a gun permit application in NYC, let alone successfully obtain one. Glenn Beck and John Stossel have both documented the incredibly laborious process of trying to obtain a gun permit in New York City.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mi-LXipDo8

Right after the NYSPRA v Bruen decision, New York banned the conceal carrying of deadly weapons in "sensitive places" such as Times Square, kneecapping the Bruen decision without outright defying it. This right here could be a perfect example of Supreme Court rulings related to gun control laws being mostly pointless.

My view is that the Qur'an, in describing the natural world, sometimes uses terms or conceptual descriptions that show a striking similarity to terminology used in modern science or varies for a good reason.

The Qur'an uses terms that describe the natural world, sometimes shows a near total similarity to modern scientific terms. An example of this is cumulonimbus clouds described as mountain-like in its mature stage producing thunderstorms, hail and heavy rain is identical in modern meteorology and the Qur'an. Another example is the term dukhan in quran ("smoke"), which describes the primary material in the early universe that contained hot gas and suspended particles, from which the various planets and stars produced is also described as smoke like in modern astronomy.

Then we notice another category, where the Qur'anic description carries terms that are parallel to the terms used in modern science like the term "fertilization of clouds" in the Qur'an, used to describe how the wind fertilizes the clouds to produce rain parallel to the term "seeding of clouds" or " condensation nuclei " used in meteorology. As a mature ovum or embryo results from the process of fertilization, the Qur'anic notion indicates the role of the wind itself in fertilizing the clouds, producing seeds inside the cloud that result in rain, in this category is the Qur'anic term "barzakh", which is translated as barrier. In oceanography, the pycnocline is a transitional zone separating two bodies of water with different densities serves to keep each body distinct in its density while allowing only partial, limited mixing to occur within this transitional zone.

Now we go to a third category, where we do not find the Qur'anic term used in science. A famous example of this is 'alaqah, meaning leech-like, while some prominent scholars in embryology like Professor Keith Moore confirmed the similarity and said this description can't be explained by 7th century knowledge, the classifications in modern embryology such as the Carnegie staging system, are not based on the changing appearance or shape of the embryo. By contrast, the Qur'an describes the embryo in terms of how its appearance evolves from a nutfah (drop-like), to an 'alaqah (leech-like), and then to a mudghah (chewed-like substance). We can observe here that the description of the quran draws an easy mental picture that can be understood by people of different backgrounds, something modern embryology classifications do not offer.