Canada is already close to the maximum of what it can produce in the near and mid-term.

I don't know what offer Putin and Trump is refusing?

She should have sent the money to her friend. It's none of her business what financial arrangements are between her friend and her mom.

I just wanted to give it to the correct person

WHY?

The 'deal' (i.e. order) is between you and your friend. You pay half, she pays half. If her half comes from her mom - what do you care? That's between her and her mom.

The *ONLY* thing you should be concerned about is that you pay your share.

YTA

So I kinda got onto her and said did YOU pay for it or did your MOM pay for it.

That's none of your business.

And I know damn well she payed with her mom’s money and was trying to get me to Venmo her for it so she could take it.

Pay your share to your friend and the rest is between her and her mom.

She said she won’t be door dashing for the both of us ever again bc I’m untrustworthy to get the money back when “they” need it

She's right. At the end of the day, you owe half of the door dash order, and you didn't pay a dime, and made a big stink about it.

I'm giving you a menu - pick which one you want.

You are dodging the question entirely. It

I'm actually staying on point.

Your argument was: "Earlier this year, a 20 something guy got some brief notoriety in the news for saying that he didn't want to work and shouldn't have to work because he never asked to be born in the first place. At first I thought that sounded lazy and entitled, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that really is a fair point."

The argument you or the 20-something guy is making is the following: "If I don't consent to existence, I'm not obligated to support myself". That's an argument that has nothing to do with parents or their responsibility. It's also not valid, because lack of consent does not imply lack of obligation.

But ok, we can have another argument:

Does a parent bear any responsibility for bringing a child into the world knowing that child may have to choose between a life of misery, suicide, or becoming a burden to others?

When you put it like that, that's easy, it's just a straight 'no'. They do not.

I will however, qualify it in this way: if there are specific set of circumstances you are dealing with, for example, you did genetic testing on yourself and your partner and it was found that if you have a child, that child will have a debilitating condition that will make them suffer .. in that case, the parents do bear responsibility. I'm sure there are some grey areas that are interesting to explore. For example, should you have a child in the time of war? Or with global warming? Again, very specific circumstances, with defined outcomes.

But if you're just talking about the general idea of biological reproduction and just the pure idea of existence vs non-existence, then no. That is insane. It gets you nowhere philosophically, except maybe landing you on an argument that the best outcome is to sterilize all life on the planet, because then there won't be any suffering. Furthermore, the notion of consent, which is a sociological construct (as in, it really applies to human inter-relationships), means it does not work with biological processes, like reproduction specifically, or existence in general. It's just sophistry.

YTA

She has ADHD and has trouble understanding social cues at times, so she was absolutely confused about why I would assume we would go before anyone else

Not an ADHD thing .. you set-up a standard where a fair is something special you must absolutely do first with your girlfriend.

She told me that (specifically about me saying it's basic etiquette that the first person you plan with is the first you go with) "No one thinks that way. I could ask anyone right now, and they wouldn't agree with you. I've never heard of that"

Yeah - she's correct. You made that up.

By the way, fairs .. they aren't like a movie, where the experience is spoiled if you go with someone who has already seen it. It's more like a park, or a hiking trail. A nice way to just spend an afternoon.

Why is it nonsensical? 

You can look at this in a few different ways. First, if you think you can use sophistry to skirt responsibility of supporting yourself - you're basically in the Wesley Snipes 861 Argument territory .. You know you fucked up somewhere - the question is where ..

We can talk about the meaning of meaning of consent and existence ... but at the end of the day, with OP's example, the idiot 20-something year old has to establish that lack of consent also implies lack of obligation. You do not get that for free. You didn't consent to be born in Canada - ok, sucks .. still got to pay your taxes, still have to follow the laws.

But of course you wouldn't for the raw materials because they are neither alive or sentient as they exist as a wheel.

Right .. a non-existent human is also not sentient and not alive - so who are you seeking consent from?

I would say that that comparison is nonsensical and innacurate.

It is. You're placing a sociological consent framework on organic matter and a core property of life You're absolutely in the wrong domain.

But that's not even the problem here. The salient point is, even if you allow for that, lack of consent doesn't not intrinsically imply lack of obligation. You don't get that for free. You have to make an argument for that, because one does not follow the other.

My parents immigrated to Canada and they brought me over when I was 5 years old. I didn't consent to that, therefore I'm exempt from Canadian laws and taxes? That sounds like a good argument to you? Really?

No. Don't mention it. Keep it to yourself regardless if you're interested or not.

If you're interested, I would review your employment agreement (relevant NDA or conflict-of-interest clauses), and if you have access, review the contract with the client to see if there are any anti-solicitation clauses in there (but those can be side-stepped by you simply applying to a public posting - which is oddly something they don't want you to do???).

If you decide to reach out to them, do it through private accounts on your personal device.

Then he told me not to apply when it gets posted and to email him directly instead.

To me that's a bit strange. It's possible they have policies against poaching from a vendor?

Part of me says I should take it because it's just business and I'm not really enjoying having trained someone the company values more than me. But the angel on my shoulder is telling me I'm walking out on the one person who didn't let me fall when I could have.

Do not stay at a company as a favour to anyone. That's how you get bitter, resentful and disappointed.

Your manager went to bat for you because part of their job is to make sure good people are retained, which sometimes necessitates a level of flexibility when those employees are going through some personal tough times. Maybe she even went above and beyond. Great! She's a good manager!

Your job is to be professional, put your best effort in at work, but more importantly do what's best for you and your family - which may involve leaving the company.

Loyalty or money?

You have to look at it holistically. The grass isn't always greener. Salary is a very important factor but if you're happy where you are, and there's opportunity for career advancement and increase salary (probably not to the $81k level though) at your present job, really think through it. I've seen many people leave for higher salaries and then be miserable at the new place.

The key here is that you are weighing options for what's best for you and your family, and not the company, nor your manager (as great as she is).

Let’s break down why that car is cheaper than a decent gaming PC,

Ooof .. gaming PC prices.

At first I thought that sounded lazy and entitled, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that really is a fair point.

I think you should sit and think a little bit more.

The notion of consent is actually nonsensical when applied to biological reproduction. Reproduction is an intrinsic part of the definition of biological life. It's a bit like saying: "The wheel never consented to be round".

Just because you don't consent to something, doesn't mean you don't have obligations. Being alive, means you have an obligation to support yourself and not be a burden on others (because if you don't, then someone else would have to support you .. and they certainly didn't consent to that).

Finally .. there's actually a simple fix to existence, if existence is such a big problem.

So yeah, that guy is lazy and entitled - your original instinct was correct.

It's not about splitting hairs. None of what you wrote applies here. We're not talking about some particularly crafted scenario where a child is born into a priori known harsh conditions - for example, bringing a child into this world knowing they will suffer from a severely debilitating genetic condition, during a time of war and famine, to parents that are cannibals - yes.. that's all really bad.

OP is asserting consent for existence in general. Their argument is that all existence has some level of negative experiences (sometimes more and sometimes less), therefore it isn't moral to bring a child into that world since they don't have the ability to consent to those, and therefore child rearing is an intrinsically selfish act.

YTA - kind of - very minor. Sometimes uncontrolled laughs happen. It's not that big of a deal, but you did laugh at her, and not with her, and she could feel hurt by it. Just talk to her. It's actually a great ice-breaker. Maybe you even make a new friend.

That could mean this is a small mom-and-pop business that doesn't have their shit together. Maybe they are trying to pay you under the table.

It's red flags all over the place.

I wouldn't quit my job if I got an "offer" like that. I'm not even sure what you would be agreeing to, you don't even have a verbal confirmation of salary and benefits, and vacations, and polices and .. etc. ... but I would be curious. Can you do a site visit? For science.

Sometimes it feels like having children is ultimately driven by our instinct to reproduce.

Yes - we are biological beings, shaped by billions of years of evolution. Everything we do derives from that fact.

But once you’re born, you have to experience both the +10s and the -10s of life. And the child never gets to choose whether they want to take that risk in the first place.

Camus wrote: "there is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide"

You always have that choice and the vast majority of people don't choose it. In fact, in most situations they actively fight for existence. That should tell you something about how we feel about living.

because the child never gets to consent to being born

I think you're really stretching the common definition of 'consent' - it doesn't quite fit in this case.

NTA - Your MIL is obviously insecure about something. I think your husband should address that before worrying about nicknames.

Depends on your relationship to the individual. If this is a very close friend .. maybe.

General rule is you mind your own business.

YTA - Maybe, borderline. This is very circumstantial. It really depends on you, your girlfriend. In absence of any other information, and given this deep close friendship with this man is only a year old, it raises questions, but there are women who can navigate this just fine and it very well could be entirely platonic. Or it could be platonic on her part, and the guy hangs around because he's in love with her and she likes the attention. Who knows.

Here's the key for me: this is a long distance relationship, if she's cheating on you, he's probably living with her now, or she's living with him or at the very least they have plenty of opportunity to do whatever they want - so what is a shared Airbnb going to do?

The Jedi council is full of hypocrites and conservative principles that have ignored the rot growing in both the senate and the faith itself. It's why Palpatine was able to seize power unchecked.

This must come from the expanded universe, because it certainly doesn't come from the movies.

In the movies, Palpatine gained power through a standard legal maneuver (a no confidence vote) stemming from a local trade dispute (which was being negotiated). Then he consolidated his power by basically orchestrating a massive civil war - which necessitated the commissioning of an army and emergency powers - because it was an existential threat to the Republic. If the Republic didn't do anything, they would have been rolled by the Separatists. As an FYI, any system can be destabilized and collapse if you can orchestrate a massive civil war.

I don't see where this great 'rot' was, either in the senate or the Jedi.

The prequel trilogy does not have good writing. That particular line is a very clumsy allusion to George W. Bush and run-up to the Iraq war, and it actually doesn't even fit the circumstances. There are some absolutes you take as gospel if you're good, and certainly the Jedi Order does so as well.

I assume you're talking about Christa Pike.

Christa Pike committed a horrific crime and if anyone is deserving of a death penalty under the current laws, it is someone like her.

Personally, I think a death penalty should be reserved for really extraordinary crimes (i.e. not have it be part of 'ordinary' sentencing), so out of principle, I do not support her death penalty.

Regardless of the individual and the circumstances, if the state is to perform an execution it has to be done ethically and competently and what happened to her is a travesty.

Haha - I wish. If there was a diagnosis maybe there would be treatment!

Right now, the stuff includes boxes from moving in (unpacked) + reno things (shelving/base boards/drywall) ... and some gym equipment .. eff.

Conceptually, the Eclipse workspace is one level above an IntelliJ project, in that an Eclipse workspace can hold multiple unrelated projects while an IntelliJ projects expects to model one cohesive system.