David Horowitz doesn't seem radical at all. His positions as far as I can google in five minutes seem very reasonable.

I think you seeing him as radical is more a reflection of how radically left you are.

So this is more like an art than science - and Claude Code happens to be the best at this messy art (imo).

Money isn't the only factor of why the single fathers produce better outcomes for their children.

Show your work, provide a source.

you bring an interesting perspective

Thanks, appreciate it.

Ah yes other factors of misogynistics like potential men seeing a single mother as an issue why potential woman might not.

Btw. its also a lot harder for man to get the sole custody which means that only the most motivated and well suited men even achieve this probably also with an expensive lawyer.

This is actually well known.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?

"Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?"

Because they are curious (consistent with the culture of this site). They would also be more likely to trust their own sources, I assume.

Trusting sources because they are your "own" is just asking for bias to be ingrained.

Yet it's well known that if you want someone to change their mind it's most likely to occur if they think it's their own idea/doing. You're more likely to argue with me than if you just read sources you found and independently came to the conclusion.

Not really, no.

Sex has consequences like these people are seeing.

Consenting people can still make mistakes and ruin relationships where if they had exercised better judgment they wouldn't have had problems.

A child has one biological mother and effectively two biological fathers.

A significant portion of the population have zero of one or both groups known.

The child will likely be just fine.

Consenting adults can have sex with each other. There's zero shame in that.

And though having these two partners was unwise for this reason, it's not really a matter of shame so much as one where we should just find a practical solution that doesnt mess with the kid.

No birth control is 100%. We live on a planet were very rare situations are getting published as 'news'. So the fact that you read this news, doesn't tell you anything shameful at all. You are just biased and don't even realise it.

And no you are not allowed to shame other people for their decisions if its not clear that there is a kid getting abused in any way. People are adults and not yours to criticsize if it doesn't affect you or a 3th entity which can't protect itself.

Its your personal opionion you can easily and should keep yourself.

I'm biased against this and you're biased towards it.

And your opinion is just as worthy of being kept to yourself.

It's not that you're against shame you just don't want your bad behaviors shamed.

Nope our viewpoints are not the same like a coin with two similiar sides.

I let people do what they want to do without projecting something onto them based of my values. So my viewpoint is openness.

Yours is the complete opposite. You project your values onto them. You are forcing something which doesn't affect you onto others. You want to control them.

Its like people who have a religion/believe say you also have to believe while i say i'm not allowed to push you into something like this.

And in my eyes this is not bad behavior at least not from the information i have. I would be concerned if and only if the kid would grow up without any parent.

War is one manifestation of politics.

Politics will exist for as long as there are people.

Any country not able to or interested in waging occasional war will be destroyed by countries that can and do.

Simple as that.

But please I'm interested in hearing any utopia arguments that claim we can/should deprecate war. And remember - you have to convince your country along with every other country.

You haven't really made an argument of your own. You've just made a claim and presented no evidence. "Simple as that" is neither argument nor evidence nor rationale. This is no better than the people who fall back on "war is hell" to justify when they've fucked up and caused the deaths and suffering of a bunch of civilians for no good purpose.

You could at least say something like "we have to bomb the people so they can be free" or "don't you know the Iranians were seconds away from nuking new York, because they have no regard for their own survival".

We should "deprecate" offensive wars of choice based on lies because the opportunity cost is enormous (what could we have bought with the 200+ billion they're already looking to spend here?).

Every time we do this we create more terrorists (see the blowback incidents weve already had from this war), which results in more egregious government overreach on the domestic population (see patriot act and the experience of commercial flight in today's world).

And those are just some of the basic reasons. I don't have time to write them all.

They're not just betting on the current tech, they're building out infra like this because probably any future tech currently being researched will also require massive data centers.

Like how the gpt llms were kind of a side project at openai until someone showed how powerful they could be if you threw a lot more parameters at it.

There could be some other architecture in the works that makes gpts look old - first to build and train that new ai will be the winner.