infinite_luck

I don't see 'ok boomer' as a hostile attitude, but rather as a response specifically towards the media that has been calling millennials lazy and entitled for the past decade, despite the fact that education, housing, and healthcare and much more expensive for them than they were for boomers. It is dismissive, but I would say those who spout these generalized, ill-informed complaints have earned it.

And I'm sure there are some who use the phrase to refer to every boomer, but I don't believe most do.

This is something I think about a lot. I plan to never stop doing mentally stimulating activities, even in my old age. The difference you can see in cognitive ability between the elderly is staggering.

One particular instance that sticks in my mind was a video filmed in the UK where for some unrelated reason four older men and women were interviewed, with ages ranging between 80 and the low 100's. The mid 80 year old had trouble recalling information, spoke slowly, and generally seemed to exist in a fog so thick you could practically see it. On the other hand, the person around 100 was completely lucid, maybe even sharper than me! I can't say for sure that this is due to keeping busy and not partially genetic as well, but the variability really struck me.

If I remember correctly he had two points against statutory rape. His first was that it's absurd that it is illegal for, say, a 20 year old to have sex with a 17 year old (in certain states). I would agree with this in that that situation isn't immoral, as the actual immorality should come from differences in the mental development of the two people. Of course this varies from person to person and is basically impossible to determine in actuality, so we set a certain cut off because its what we CAN do. The second point, which I also would agree with, is that it's ridiculous for it to be called rape when statutory rape and actual rape are very different things. I believe his grievance is with the name of statutory rape, specifically in cases where two individuals are quite close in age anyways. As is the case with a 17 and 20 year old. On the other hand I would say that a 20 year old and a 13 year old would be closer to rape because even if both parties say it is consensual, it actually can't be fully consensual due to the differences in mental development.

So I believe the problem comes down to these two very different situations sharing the same name. Maybe they don't carry the same punishment, I'm not sure, but I definitely don't agree with calling both of these situations the same name, especially when that name includes the word rape. There's a gravity there that I believe the situation with the 20 and 17 year old doesn't carry, but the situation with the 20 and 13 year old does.

I'm curious about the logical fallacy that you can objectify morality. I would like to do more reading on this subject, could you direct me towards the proof for this? I'm genuinely interested.

Like the others have said, the bodyweightfitness subreddit is a great resource. I just want to stress if/when you get to using gymnastics rings, don't just jump right into them, be very careful with your form. Also be sure to that you have not progressed too quickly and are actually doing the exercises you should be doing for your strength level. I've injured myself on them multiple times (the first time I was just doing something dumb) and I'm currently on the tail end of the recovery of another injury. I would imagine this just has to do with the fact that each ring is independent of the other, with many free degrees of movement, which makes it easier to slip into form that is bad on your body. That being said, I love body weight training and starting it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.

Unfortunately, it crashed. They said they were having problems with the main engine. They restarted it, but as it was restarting it seems as if it gained too much velocity. It seems like the engine started again, but only right before it impacted with the surface at 134 m/s.

I understand. I wasn't supporting the person you were arguing against, just pointing out that the US Border Patrol hasn't killed thousands of migrants.

On that wikipedia page you linked, the 7000 (or 10000 since 1994) deaths are from all combined sources. The vast majority of those seem to be from exposure to the elements (for instance hypothermia is one of the most common causes of death) or accidents. If you read the part of that page that talks about Border Agents' use of force, around 17 deaths are listed, with an additional 10 left disabled. Your use of that source is a misunderstanding at best or dishonest at worst.