Spam and summary

[captain_aj]

I've not posted in a while, so here's a lot of things I want to post all as one entry. You'd hate me if I split it into multiple posts.

Personal
Since the last personal post, I'm significantly happier and far more sorted. I like where this is going.

SmokeThat smoking ban thing passed. My opinions cover both very-pro and very-con, on different

Comments

[beenabadbunny]

I think it should say "toxic fumes" instead of "toxic air" but other than that, sterling work! :)

[lauranat]

'Lolworth' amused me more than it should have. :(

Love the marriage website; in particular, I love the section on children.

Apropos of the poll: I have had enough of some aspects of it but not others. :/

The poster is fantastic, obviously.

[gerald_duck]

I would just like to make it clear that I tickyboxed "I haven't had enough of our permissive society" before I saw your poster.

[tienelle]

Parents who are together seem to do a slightly better job than parents who aren't of turning gametes into useful members of society. I suspect the difference would be more marked if people were less utterly incompetent. Most societies could do with more useful members, therefore institutions which encourage parents to stick together are good for societies.

Marriage also provides a pretty strong barrier preventing the couple from separating, which allows you to make plots and schemes on the assumption that you'll be together for life, which is often valuable.

[gerald_duck]

The social imperative is for a child to be supported into adulthood. In that respect, two parents are better than one, but who says three isn't better than two, and so on? I'm not aware of any good studies of how children fare in communes, extended families, whatever, compared with the wife-and-two-kids stereotypical family unit.

Evolution favours children being raised by people with an interest in the propagation of their DNA, so that good parenting gets selected for. Interestingly, this doesn't necessarily mean children being raised by the father and mother: in at least one ancient Indian society a child was raised by her mother and uncles. When you think about it, an maternal uncle has exactly as much genetic stake in a child as the father.

[zebbiejohnson]

*Until* you think about it, an uncle has the same genetic stake as a father.

But, the mother and her full brother do not have identical DNA - they fully represent the same two parents, but not necessarily the same genes from each - for a start, the mother got an X from her dad and the uncle got a Y. The 50% inheritance from each parent is only relating to gross measures and on average through expressed qualities, also.

It is hypothetically possible (unlikely, granted) for the brother and sister to share no DNA* with each other at all, if they each got the other 50% of the parents' genes....

*bearing in mind that most of human DNA is shared by all humans as it refers to things like lungs and protein binders and blood-clotting factors, the variable parts are the relevant ones here.

[gerald_duck]

Sorry, yes - brain-fade. A maternal uncle will on average have half as large a genetic stake as the father?

[mad_tigger]

So you risked life and limb outrunning farmers with shotguns instead of cars travelling much more slowly than gunshot.

[gerald_duck]

Ah, but the car drivers aren't trying to hit cyclists.

Much.

[captain_aj]

Well, less farmers in the area than cars, and I can outrun farmers on the specific terrain. Plus, had a silenced bike to help me get past any sentries (it was twilight). All in all, a sound tactical decision.