@Johan

Been lying about my age to my LTR for 6 months, should i reveal it?

I'm 32

I'm rarely attracted to girls of my age, and even then, most of them don't take me seriously and believe i'm a student

I basically look like i'm in my early 20's, so i started telling girls i meet at the club/bar that i'm 24, because they got the ick half of the time when i would tell my real age, depsite being attracted to me

i met current gf at a bar 6 months ago, told her i'm 24 the night i met her, she is 20YO, everything is goine fine, she is super attracted, she isn't suspisious about anything

I even met her parents/sister/friends, they like me a lot

Not sure what to do at this point, just reveal my age and see how it goes? I can't get prosecuted because the majority is 18 in my country

You didn't care enough about this to tell her six month ago, and if she doesn't know by now, then she clearly doesn't care. Stop over-thinking this like it's a problem and just enjoy the time you spend with her when you spend time with her. With what you've share, should fortune smile upon you let your tombstone be the thing that lets her know how much older than her you were.

@Stigma

A volcano erupts in Iceland and my carbon footprint for that year, and 10,000 or more people is instantly erased.

Not only is this a dumb and self-serving notion, it further reveals your lack of understanding of climate science and the principles of global warming theory.

Earth's natural climate as defined by conditions that have prevailed for tens of thousands of years since the last ice age, represents a stable state whose inputs INCLUDE periodic volcanic eruptions and their normal duration and typical set of effects. Global warming happens because of the forcing effect of humans adding 37 billion (and climbing) metric tons per year, every year, of CO2 to the atmosphere ON TOP OF natural inputs including volcanic eruptions. Average annual human made CO2 emissions have reached 90 times the annual average of volcanic CO2 emissions.

I've engaged countless vocal climate change deniers over the decades, and vanishingly few of these brought facts and figures to the discussion, and of that minority, even fewer were able/willing to support or defend their facts and figures beyond one single challenge. The discussion always ends up in the realm of wishful thinking and emoting, neither of which fall within the class of masculine behaviors.

@Dragonaros

I have heard @ryanstone mentioning/quoting @Mentotpheus, but he couldn't exactly remember who he is personally so called him a philosopher/scientist or something. I'm not sure is it this @mentorpheus but it sounded the same.

Yes, NGL it was quite the dopamine rush to hear my post from 5+ years ago discussed.

The post in question was about using E Prime in discussions. This is a subset of English minus the verb to be, for example is, was, etc. I still try to use this in serious posts though it can make the wording a bit tedious. The idea is to not use IS because it potentially shapes and limits one's understanding of the thing discussed, like implying that some quality (he IS an incel, a boomer, a liberal etc) is an immutable, permanent, and all-defining fact of the thing discussed. In practical terms, one substitutes adjectives (he behaves like a boomer) or verbs (a Tesla goes fast; gender affirming surgery becomes problematic) to highlight and parameterize the writer's point.

Funny thing about his comment: I am not a scientist or philosopher by trade; I made my living working as a "lowly" blue-collar mechanic. However, that doesn't define me overall, for in my spare time read voraciously and owned several cases of science, philosophy, psychology, and political books. Goes to show describing me by saying I am a mechanic or I am a scientist/philosopher leaves out more than it illustrates toward an accurate description of me.

@Typo-MAGAshiv I realize this and even bolded it; if you look upthread it comes in response to one of his own assertions in the form of a negative declaration. I brought forward this point repeatedly to highlight the low quality of his reasoning and argumentation skills, and sure enough, he missed several chances to notice and point this out and possibly improve his position and even game as we went.

This is far from my first rodeo. I've been personally watching and engaged in climate and earth science debate going back to the '70s. What @Stigma has presented thus far amounts to the most base normie level of understanding the issue; basically, I can't personally engage or understand the fundamentals of the discussion, so I'm gonna deny the entire thing and go all-in with a slave morality of adopting the position of those who benefit most in the short term, even when my own benefit is marginal and the harm to my progeny extreme.

I've watched the same scenario play out across the entire population over and over; denial that there's even a problem even when it becomes personally impactful before our eyes. Like the stages of death, following such a predictable pattern. *Oh, the earth is TOO VAST for measly little mankind to ever affect it! (where religiotards start and end the discussion incidentally...) Oh maybe things are changing but THE CLImATe chAngeS NAtuRaLLy. Oh maybe we're affecting it BUT NOTHING WE DO CAN FIX IT. Oh maybe technical and regulatory fixes exist BUT THEY ARE TOO COSTLY AND WILL BANKRUPT INDUSTRY AND PUT US ALL INTO THE STONE AGE.

Some very specific examples of denied but ultimately solved problems of too many people burning through too many resources too quickly:

In Los Angeles, the sky would turn ORANGE with a haze that you could see obscuring the view just across the distance of the playground, and dozens of days every year when the smog was so bad that children were required to stay indoors instead of going out to recess and exerting themselves in it; when hundreds of people in marginal health would literally die from the pollution and the air literally hurt to breathe. Nitrous oxide emissions were the culprit, and with innovations like combustion chamber alterations like flame spreaders in ovens and furnaces, and timing and knock control plus three-way catalysts (possible only with unleaded fuel) in vehicles, the air in Los Angeles became clean again DESPITE the population and vehicle miles constantly increasing.

In even the remote Black Forest of Germany, the soil PH was so altered that trees hundreds of years old were dying because they couldn't take up nutrients despite their abundance in the soil. The culprit was identified as sulfur emissions causing acid rain. Naysayers scoffed that if it was real people would be melting, a bullshit argument of the type seen in this thread. Yet with low-sulfur fuels and sulfur scrubbers in large smokestack industries, the sulfur added to the atmosphere got reduced enough that acid rain is now a solved problem despite a steady increase in BTU burning.

The ozone layer was getting damaged resulting in steady measurable increase in ground level ultraviolet radiation that would burn plants and humans in direct sunlight worse than everyone remembered 10 years prior. Naysayers scoffed and said it wasn't so, and then that "they" wanted everyone to live without refrigeration and air conditioning even as we were told as kids not to play outside in the noon sun because we indeed burned quickly. The main culprit was identified as the massive use of chlorofluorocarbon gases as refrigerants and aerosol can propellants, which were particularly pernicious as the reaction was shown that a single chlorine atom in the ionosphere would repeatedly cleave thousands ozone molecules before eventually breaking down to an inert form itself. These gases were phased out with hydrocarbons used as propellants and hydrofluorocarbons used as very effective direct replacement refrigerants and even better and less harmful ones developed for new equipment.

There came a time when ALL the tuna harvested from ALL the vast oceans of earth contained so much mercury that it became dangerous to eat very much of it in a year. Yet scrubbers in coal plants, strict regulation of tailings at mercury mines (letting it leach directly the fuck into nearby rivers) and strict handling and disposal requirements for and phase-outs wherever possible in mercury-bearing consumer goods were all enacted, and tuna being too dangerous to eat isn't even a conversation any more.

These are all discussions and debates that I've seen get denied and argued against, but nonetheless implemented to great mutually beneficial effect, across my own lifetime. I recognize the same denial and argumentation patterns of the above solved-problems in the likes of @Sigma in his hand-waving of the current debate of climate change due to massive fossil fuel consumption WHILE unprecedentedly massive fires made possible by markedly unusual climate conditions actively burn in my immediate vicinity.