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.

Ok poster.

(Easy there downvoters, I'm demonstrating why 'ok <label>' is dismissive and hostile to others by showing a similar dismissal statement.. read and see below for the argument)

Or I could respond with why I believe what the other party's response is incorrect and understand that the other party may hold conflicting beliefs. What you're stating about the beliefs held by millennials about others view them. (It may or may not be correct.. media representation of the belief is there)

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.

My understanding is that social activities are even more important than mentally stimulating activities.

Humans are social animals, so I tend to agree. My hunch is that feeling, on a visceral level, that you are necessary to the people around you in some fashion is what will keep the will to live burning bright. It can be actual or merely delusional - the important aspect being the level of conviction in the belief.

I wonder how that tallies up for introverts vs extroverts. Personally I'd rather stick sharpened pencils in my eyes than partake in social activities with a bunch of other retirees.

How introverts are poking their mental decline in the eye!

Most of this is just pure dumb luck combined with vascular health (to the extent that isn't dumb luck).

Why do you say so? There seems to be some compelling evidence that keeping your mind and body active increases your quality of life during old age.

Yes, definitely. But it's not a single factor thing and want to emphasize that. Dying prematurely is not always some failing of will, nor is not keeping active. Degenerative joint issues, for instance. Also vision, like ARMD. Et cetera. I personally suspect that things that prevent activity are manifestations of the same age related wasting. But stay active at any age, mentally and physically. Even if it had zero impact on longevity (and it has a positive impact) it's good for quality of life.

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.

Let’s look at Stallman’s actual words. Stallman said the most plausible explanation is that the child who Minsky abused was ‘entirely willing’.

Or, there is this quote:

“All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was being coerced. it does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.”

Or this one:

“it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”

With all due respect to your argument, this is not a case of a 20 year old and a 17 year old. This is a case of a 73 year old esteemed researcher at an institution with undergraduate students having sex with a 17 year old in a country that defines such an age difference as statutory rape.

Stallman’s idea about how it’s absurd to define rape according to age or country is offensive in every way imaginable. Sovereign nations are allowed to set and enforce their own laws. Other sovereign nations are allowed to choose whether to extradite their citizens back to those nations to face their justice system. But the act of entering a country is an agreement that you will respect its sovereignty and its laws. If you argue against that, you’re effectively arguing against the entire basis of international law and international relations. That would be an interesting argument, but let’s talk about mineral rights instead of child sexual abuse.

As for age, countries around the world recognize that children cannot be expected to provide informed consent to engage in sexual activity. They argue that by statute, some children are not capable of consenting to sexual activity. These countries have tried to come up with policy to deal with how absolute differences in age don’t necessarily account for differences in maturity. Some countries will not enforce statutory rape laws if the age difference is slight. Other countries enforce their own laws differently to account for different situations. This is a case of a 56 year age difference involving a pedophile, an eminent researcher and a victim of child trafficking.

All of that aside, the fact is that a victim chose to come forward and make herself available to be deposed. During this deposition, the victim said that she was coerced into having sex with Minsky.

Minsky is dead. Why not believe the victim? What do we gain from pedantic arguments about the nature of international law and sexual abuse?

* Edited because my first version was poorly written and almost incomprehensible.

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.

In the limit, Gödel.

(I'm not joking, I swear! To objectify morality you have to encode it, eh? So you're sunk before you begin: there will be moral things that can't be encoded, and encode-able things that are not moral, or cannot be proven moral nor immoral. And then you have the problem of deciding whether "objectifing morality" is itself a moral goal, n'est-ce pas? )

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.

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.

Which is no different from the landmines that "Europeans" (one country) "use" (still have them after an atrocious war) to keep migrants out. This was my point.

It felt like a "whatabout" reaction and no effort was made to remove the impression that mines are actually employed with the purpose of keeping migrants out.

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.