That certainly explains a lot.

Low key hope so, maybe that’ll secure funding for Nasa…

If you value some relationship (for whatever reason, be it work, family or communal), you only need to put up with difficult people as much as the valued relationship requires you to.

As in, there’s no “objective” amount of how much you need to put up with difficult people. It’s defined by people you already have around you. If people around you demand that you have to spend time and energy on a difficult person way more than you want, it’s on you to figure out if those people are worth it.

That a system supports a life you find worthwhile does not mean it is inherently worth supporting.

That’s not the claim made in op. Op makes exactly 0 claims on what kind of life one SHOULD think is worthwhile, or what kind of system SHOULD be. The point is that it’s on the reader to figure out for themselves. Again, you input your own values into the framework.

You define what kind of life is worthwhile.

You support a system that you KNOW enables it.

It would NOT make sense to NOT support a system that enables it.

That’s for you to answer for yourself.

The original statement is a framework, or a formula like a+b=c. You define what kind of life is “worthwhile” and what the “system” is. You plug in your own values. If a system doesn’t align with the life you want - whether you’re coerced into it or not - you don’t have to support it. The logic is about your agency. If you’re stuck in a system you didn’t choose, the question is: What can you do to change your situation? What kind of a sub-system can you adopt? The statement doesn’t demand loyalty. It’s about recognizing what truly supports the life you want and acting on that - whether that means surrendering, adapting, resisting, or leaving. It’s always about your judgment.

No, i’m just saying that you’re executing the cycle op is talked about either way. Up to you to do what you want with that.

if you don’t find that kind of life worth living, stop supporting the system. if you support a system that enables you to use drugs and listen to really old music, then i guess you find it worth living for.

What you’re saying doesn’t contradict OP?

The pull out method is not reliable, don’t gamble on it. Don’t trust guys who gamble on it.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/pull-out-withdrawal

Please use protection. If you’re not prepared for the possibility of a child, take plan B now, rather than have an abortion later.

Consider contraceptive pill or an IUD, but for all random sex you really should be using a condom to protect against Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

Please practice sex responsibly. If you can’t, you definitely do not have the capacity to deal with the responsibility of a child.

Preferably watch this before the next time you even think about having sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9pOJbvkEA&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMweg6Yx9MHP01n_yUyaf9H

The Iran sane-washing is out of fucking control. It’s being done in bad faith across the internet.

I’m willing to bet this is partly a right wing/russian shill campaign to once again discredit and make the left look like the crazy one.

arresting five male teenagers across several German states suspected of plotting violent attacks against migrants.

Teenagers. Far right fucks like to push kids to do this shit because they’re easily impressionable and get more lenient sentences. I hope there’s enough resources to properly undo the brainwashing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260310060407/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/10/thousands-authors-publish-empty-book-protest-ai-work-copyright

Understanding the difference between things matters, dang it.

deleted by creator

But that’s not an argument for making testing default. Men in such relationships can accept the possibility that the kid isn’t theirs. Or request testing if it’s important to them. This is the parents responsibility and your example is an outlier.

My point was that if the test is mandatory, or even an opt-out rather than opt-in, it creates a culture where the underlying thought is that women on average can’t be trusted to name the biological father.

I did not… forget this? But I guess you’re talking to the general “you” and not me personally?

Best thing for a child by far is to be wanted and raised with love. Forcing a woman to bear a child they don’t want is cruel to both.

Look, I’m not gonna pretend this isn’t a messy, painful topic, because it is. And I get why it pisses people off. Nobody wants to be on the hook for 18 years of child support for a kid that isn’t theirs. That’s a totally reasonable thing to be mad about. Hell, I’d be mad too. Being tricked into that is a violation. And yeah, the legal system doesn’t always handle it well. Sometimes it feels like men get the short stick here, and I’m not gonna sit here and tell you that’s not true, because in some cases, it absolutely is. Worth noting though that women on the other hand get the short stick in many other fields, and we’ll never get absolute equality anyway. And certain people dismissing this topic with just “think of the children” is unhelpful. It dismisses real pain and hands over the conversation to the worst-faith actors, who are more than happy to fill the void with rage and simplification.

The “mandatory paternity tests” idea might sound nice and simple solution on the surface. I get the appeal. Rational, factual, reliable. But think about what that actually means. You’re saying every woman who gives birth should automatically be treated like a potential liar. Every kid starts life under a cloud of suspicion. That’s not just a legal change; that’s a cultural one. Marriage is a choice two adults make, with full awareness of what they’re signing up for. Ideally anyway. But a newborn doesn’t get that choice. They don’t get to opt out of the suspicion or the stigma. They just inherit it.

While still not fair towards the guy, I think perhaps it would be better to keep the system as is BUT introduce an additional step where if a child is found to be the result of infidelity, the woman is obligated to pay damages to the man after the child turns 18 (or perishes). Yes, they guy will have to bitterly pay for the kid that isn’t theirs but the woman won’t get away with it scot free. Once the kid is secured, the woman will pay back every penny. Yes, it’s still painful for the guy but at least it would a bit more fair. And yes there are million details and whatabouts but I think it’s a step into the right direction.