Nokia only sold off their consumer mobile phone arm. It was the least profitable part of their business. They're still a massive company and doing quite well.
The power dynamic between 14 and 18 is not the same as the one between 14 and 54, but it's still there and somewhat problematic. Here you are claiming that it didn't at all traumatize you while also arguing that pedophilia is perfectly fine.
Poe married his cousin when she was 13.
That same year, you could legally purchase another human being. Those two things being commonplace once upon a time doesn't make them any less fucked up.
Maybe she actually wanted to marry him?
I can't tell if you're still going on about Poe's cousin here or if you're talking about the child from the article, so I'll try to address both...
Little girls in America in the early 1800s didn't have a whole lot of options. They weren't allowed to go to college. They couldn't vote. Good paying jobs were out of the question. In the particular case of Virginia Clemm, her family was destitute. Poe paid the family off so they would allow the marriage, and he had to lie about her age on the marriage license. Not the greatest example if that's who you're talking about.
If you're talking about the child from the article, she definitely didn't want to marry him.
The rapist threatened her and her family to get his way. Let's entertain the hypothetical though. Even if she did want to marry her rapist, it doesn't make it ok. 14-year-olds want absurd things all the time. Mine would drop out of middle school and play video games all day if I let him. Doesn't mean he understands the impact that decision would have on his life.
Well let me be perfectly clear then. Children don't willingly have sex with adults. They're coerced, groomed, tricked, conned, manipulated, threatened, or forced. Even if a 14-year-old's brain was developed enough to understand exactly what was happening (and it's absolutely not), the power dynamic between an adult and a child has a profound impact on whatever agency the child had in the situation.
If an adult convinced a child to point a gun at their head and pull the trigger, I guess you could call that willingly committing suicide, but I would call it murder.
I did answer your question. I said she can't have consented because she's a child. I also quoted the relevant lines from the article that said she was groomed and threatened. You just didn't like my answer because it didn't fit your agenda of wanting to be allowed rape children.
Because it's a sick question. A 14-year-old child can't be "willing during the sexual encounter". It's just rape. If that's not reason enough for you though, here's the relevant bit from the article:
The assaults resulted in pregnancy, and a DNA test confirmed that Sullivan was the father of the child, the district attorney's office said. Sullivan had also groomed the victim and threatened her and her family to prevent her from coming forward.
"Engineers have been circulating an old, famous-among-programmers web comic about how all modern digital infrastructure rests on a project maintained by some random guy in Nebraska. (In their telling, Mr. Freund is the random guy from Nebraska.)"
That's not quite right. Lasse Collin is the random guy in Nebraska. Freund is the guy that noticed the whole thing was about to topple.
Did you? Your nuggets of wisdom in this thread are that no one cares about women's sports, that the reason women don't try to compete with men is because they're afraid of the discrimination and abuse they'd face, and when people point out that there's a very real physical disadvantage that keeps women out of most men's sports, you drop some condescending accusatory question like "so the best woman sportball is worse than the worst man in sportball?", which, again, in a thread about trans women in sports, comes off as a gotcha question and an argument against the inclusion of trans women in women's sports.
I can see reading through your comment history now that you're clearly not the person I thought I was arguing with, but if you don't see how your comments in this thread could be taken the wrong way, I don't know how to help you.
Cool. This whole thread is about trans women in sports. When it was brought up that women are allowed to compete with men, you argued that women wouldn't want to because of the discrimination they'd have to endure, and you seem so excited to point out that men are stronger than women when people tell you why that's bullshit. Can you see why, in a thread about trans women in sports, that comes off as you trying to have a gotcha moment about how trans women are stronger than cis women and shouldn't be able to compete with them?
No, you didn't once say that women were systematically shut out of baseball, you said they'd face hardship and discrimination if they tried and that's why they don't bother. Not being allowed is not the same as not wanting to try.
not a single woman who is more skilled
Strength and skill are not the same things. Lia Thomas was a top ranked swimmer as a male with times that would dominate women's swimming. That's not what happened when she started competing with women though. She transitioned, lost a ton of muscle mass in the process, and her times became slower as a result. Exact same skill level (maybe even higher since she was more experienced at that point), but she's not remotely capable of competing with men anymore.
It's why I used baseball as my example of a sport where women could compete if given the opportunity. It's a far more skill based than the other major sports. Will the first woman to make it to MLB hit 500ft bombs or throw 100mph? Probably not, but that won't matter if she can strike people out or generate runs.
Isn't that literally what you said about the NBA and the NFL?
Yep, but it's not the gotcha moment that you think it is. Again, trans women are not men. Transitioning gets rid of any strength advantage they had as men.
I think I've already pretty thoroughly answered the question of why women haven't played baseball at the major league level since Toni Stone, Mamie Johnson, and Connie Morgan played in the Negro Leagues in the early 50s; women have been systematically shut out of baseball for decades, and while those barriers are slowly being torn down, their effects will continue to be felt for a long time. We're only just now beginning to see women play at the collegiate and minor league level, so I would imagine we're still a few decades away from women playing at the Major League level.
The NBA and NFL are entirely different stories. Those are sports where brute strength is absolutely required and being huge helps a lot. It's definitely not some fear of discrimination that's keeping women out of those sports though.
Edit: Because I've seen your other responses, and I can tell you've been waiting for me to say something about how men are stronger than women so you can have your gotcha moment, I'll also say that trans women are women, not men. That male testosterone advantage doesn't exist for someone who has to suppress theirs for at least a year before competing to a level below what many cis women naturally have. Trans women have competed alongside cis women for decades and it's never been a problem. Republicans just needed a new boogie man.
I never said those were your words. I'm telling you how it comes across, and I'm letting you you're wrong about the reason "why it generally doesn't happen".
At least in baseball, a sport where intelligence, reaction time, skill, and experience matter a lot more than raw strength, the barriers for little girls who dream of playing in the Majors are a lot more than just the discrimination they might face if they make it that far. It's the deeply rooted cultural barriers that prevent women from even getting a shot, and in a sport where even 1st round draft picks spend years in the minors getting their reps in, lack of experience is a death sentence no matter how much raw talent you have.
At every level of play, girls are heavily encouraged to switch to softball or outright denied the opportunity to play. They're excluded from youth travel ball teams because "the boys will be bigger in a few years and need the reps". A lot of high school teams won't let them try out because Title IX considers a softball team equivalent. It took a lawsuit for Litttle League to allow girls to play baseball. Young women playing baseball at smaller colleges are often lured away with softball scholarships at big universities (not that there's anything wrong with pursuing better educational opportunities).
Every woman playing college or minor league baseball says the same thing; they faced far more discrimination as kids just trying to play than they ever have in the locker room once they got the chance.
Replace women with black people and your argument sounds exactly like the enlightened individuals arguing that baseball shouldn't be integrated even if there were black men out there good enough to play ball with white men.
Jackie Robinson absolutely understood that he would face unyielding discrimination. So did the flood of black ballplayers that followed him in the years to come. Hardship didn't deter any of them.
Each dev kit is $450. Being able to test on an emulator is free. Sure, you ultimately want to test on hardware, but indie dev teams aren't going to shell out that kind of money for each developer. Who gives a fuck about indie developers though, right?
Nokia only sold off their consumer mobile phone arm. It was the least profitable part of their business. They're still a massive company and doing quite well.