When remembering a stressful experience it’s important not to get stuck in your thoughts.

Most people would be a bit shocked after what you’ve been through. Our brains tend to try to go over things a few times to get a grasp at what happened. Sometimes our thoughts become a movie of the stressful incident that plays on repeat in our thoughts. Try to think further. Remember how you got out of the situation, remember how you got home, remember how you had dinner, remember how you got to bed. And remember: You’re okay, you’re alright, this is all behind you, you did alright, and right now you’re safe and fine.

Try to explicitly think this a few times. At the very least, this is a much more pleasant thought to get stuck on than “fuck, I’m in danger”.

And if it helps: Either distract yourself or tell someone what happened. Both are okay. Just don’t stop at the scary part when telling the tale, always think and tell about it to the point where you were safe again.

It didn’t, at least not in the way you think. The headlines of the past few days show the aftermath of the last decades: industry contracts that were made in the last century and the political heritage of a generation of politicians who are no longer in power.

Coal is being phased out and that’s not changing. It cannot change substantially anyway; there is only so much coal in the gound. Recent political decisions moved to keep most of it there. For technological, political, economical and industry related reasons this won’t be a fast process unfortunately.

One of the roadblocks of our transition to a sustainable energy supply is how much money (and in our capitalisic society, therefore, power) the industry itself holds. Coal lobbies will work hard for you not to think about them too much. Nuclear lobbies will work hard for you to blame those pesky environmentalists. A game of distraction and blame shifting. This thread is a good example of how well it’s working.

Our resources are limited. This is true for good old planet earth as well as our societies. We only have so much money, time, and workforce to manage this transition. And as much as I’d love to wake up tomorrow to a world with PVC on every roof, a windmill on every field, and decentralised storage in every town center, this is just not realistic overnight. We’ll have to live with the fact of our limited resources and divert as much as possible of them towards such a future. (And btw, putting billions of dollars in money, time, and workforce towards a reactor that will start working in 10-30 years is not the way to do this, as much as the nuclear lobby would like you to think that.)

Eh. Humans have (confidently and incorrectly) assumed such causal links for millenia. There’s thunder, so there must be a thunder god. There’s a sun in the sky, so someone must have put it there. There’s people, so someone must have build them from clay.

What we could conclude logically: There is something - so something, somehow, once began.

That’s it. It’s also kind of recursive. It’s factual, but there isn’t anything meaningful inevitably following from this.

And everything else is an assumption.

You can say “I chose to believe that this somehow was a someone.” You could decide to believe that there was a personal entity as a single cause for all that is. Someone who had somewhat of a consciousness, who willingly and deliberately created everything. You could assume that this someone was eternal and all-powerful and therefore later on or even until right now still alive/active. You could speculate about this entity being interested in creating a specific planet with a very specific ecosystem. You could ponder whether this entiry would be interested enough in one species within this ecosystem to watch, influence, and even hold something like a relationship with them.

A bit far fetched, but sure. You wouldn’t be the first one to assume all these from a simple “There is a cake”.

You can do that at 14 actually.

Age of consent in Germany is a staggered system. With 14 you’re able to consent under specific conditions (them being there’s no exploitative element to the relationship), but still could file charge against the older person if they’re over 16. With 16 the first rule still applies; from 18 on you’re able to consent, period.

So for example when I was 14 I had a boyfriend, also 14, and neither of us committed any crime under this ruling. The law acknowledges that teenagers are allowed to have relationships with each other while putting every borderline case through a case-by-case hearing at court.

It’s actually a really good idea, so it kinda is a fun fact.

Did you seriously look at the FAQ of the vegan society, picked something that confirmed your preestablished opinion, and ignored the sentence right before it?

Here, let me show the whole quote:

What does it mean to be vegan?

A vegan lifestyle involves living a life that is more compassionate towards animals and the environment. The precise definition of veganism is:

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

You just have a very superficial view of veganism. Just ask yourself this: Why abstain from animals products? What is the intention of a vegan lifestyle? You’ve claimed that a nuanced application would have “made a religion”, but the opposite is true. It would be a religion if we’d blindly apply a rule of conduct without any considerations. Which we don’t, as you will see all over the vegan society’s website. Just check what they write about animal products in medication. They are absolutely clear how a vegan lifestyle should work: “As far as is possible and practicable.” An important principle that practically every single vegan out there knows and lives by.

Or maybe you’re just misunderstanding what veganism is abiut in the first place.

Some people (mostly non-vegans) seem to believe it’s about blindly and thoughtlessly abstaining from animals products. That’s how veganism might look like from the outside but it’s not actually what it’s about at it’s core. That would be to avoid all unnecessary suffering. Vegans are for example aware that the farming of plants does indeed cause animal deaths. But we can’t avoid those without starving. So it’s not unnecessary. And still vegan.

Within the same logic if someone, for whatever reason, would need meat to survive he could consume it still within the same ethical framework. And theoretically that could be vegan. The thing is: For 99.9% of people it’s BS that they need meat. So obviously in the vast majority of cases it wouldn’t be vegan, just a hypocrite lying to themselves.

I read the whole thread and didn’t see a single argument about what good would have come from that. I think you’re looking at this from a very removed point of view that lets you forget the actual individuals involved. I’m German. Let me introduce you to my grandparents and let’s see how they would’ve fared under your proposed processing:

• Grandpa A was drafted at the end of the war, he was 13. He didn’t want to be there and plotted a “genius” plan with his two buddies two lie to his general about a super important mission from the general next town and run off. He probably only survived that because his general wasn’t in the mood to shoot him on the spot.

• Grandma B wasn’t drafted obviously, she worked in (basically) social services while WWII because she actually was a supporter of the Nazi party and felt like that’s how she could do her part. She didn’t commit any atrocities, probably simply because as a woman she never got anywhere close to the front.

• Grandpa C was a party member. He didn’t want to join at first – we still own a news paper page where he (and a few others) were openly shamed for refusing to join party and front. After his brother, who had turned down an SS position, was transferred to an extra risky combat unit as cannon fodder and died on his second day, he caved. I can only assume that, as a soldier, he actively participated in the fighting. He tried to disobey where easily possible, but he didn’t desert. When his general told him to “take care” of a woman he abused, he brought her away from the front, pointed her to the nearest town and told her to flee.

• Grandma D didn’t do any of that, but she was proudly engaged to a Hitler Youth leader (who thankfully died, so she met my grandpa after the war). While WWII she absolutely was a Nazi, but she didn’t actively do anything that would mark her as such. She got into a personal crisis after the war when she stopped lying to herself about this horrible system she had supported. Until the day she died she was convinced she would go to hell.

Killing every active supporter, as you suggested, would have both my grandpas executed, although they both condemned what was happening and, limited by their sparce abilities to do so, tried to disobey. My grandmas would’ve ironically been spared, even though they were (when it comes to their attitude) more Nazis than my grandpas. Neither of the four were Nazis at later points in their life, I’d like to add. And the generation after them would have never existed - an anti-nationalistic, anti-patriotic, highly political, highly critical and socially active family, influenced by traumatized men and rueful women.

So it would have achieved nothing. I’d argue the world would be even worse if that would have been humanity’s answer to WWII back then.

But what good would it have done? Those boys were victims themselves.

Do you know how many factors are considered when calculating the Tanner Scale?

Do you?

1. Male genital size
2. Female breast size
3. Pubic hair

That’s it.

It would be equally valid to claim that pubic hair, or menstruation, or any other adult trait is the only one that matters.

This is exactly what you’re proposing by claiming that the Tanner Scale is the only determinant. Like really, exactly this. It’s beautiful how you’re debunking yourself.

*says that teenagers are adults, claims scientific facts with no source whatsoever

You have veered off into totally irrelevant nonsense about neural pathways.

Lol.

We get adult brains along with our adult bodies during puberty. That is scientific fact.

Ha, good one. Your alternative science doesn’t quite fit the actual scientific papers I quoted for you earlier. Weird, right?

But okay, I think now I understand the reason why you can’t understand the concept of maturity. Quite obvious, now that I think about it.

Have a nice day!

Well, and if you’re not trying to imply that we are at peak cognitive ability at the age of 13 (and I at least hope you don’t believe that) this should be hint number one for you that the way you think maturity works is probably wrong.

It also shows me that you didn’t even read the short excerpts I provided for you. Here, again:

Searching for Signatures of Brain Maturity: What Are We Searching For?

(…) For the current discussion, the key point is that there is no single progression that encompasses functional maturation. Neural activity intensifies and reduces, varies quantitatively and qualitatively, in linear and nonlinear ways that are both linked to—and independent of—behavioral differences across development. Each of these patterns reflects developmental progress, but the wide range of ‘‘journeys’’ prohibits a simple definition of what emerging brain functional maturity looks like. (…)

Or another quote from that paper:

(…) Measures of widespread brain connectivity shift in complex ways from childhood to adulthood, characterized by reductions in local connections and rises in distributed connections. These connectivity-based shifts are thought to reflect a brain that is becoming more efficient in its in-network communication and more integrated in its cross-network communication (…)

Since you seem confident in your grasp of the topic I guess those two should answer your question.

has convinced people that everyone under 25 is a retard

But this follows from none of those papers. You have simply no clue what you’re talking about.

I’m absolutely in favor of letting young adults live their lives and participate in society. Give them the right to vote, let their voices be heard. Give them the opportunities they need and want. You’re arguing against a strawman if you think I am against any of those. But your original claim is simply false. There are differences between people with 20 and 40, and a much bigger difference between 16 and 40. That doesn’t mean we should infantilize 16 year olds, but in certain aspects treating them the same will simply be unfair to the teenager. We have juvenile laws for a reason. And the recommendation to wait with smoking until the early 20s isn’t simply meant to annoy young people either.

If you’d stop looking at this from your over emotional point of view and read up on some actual research for a few minutes you could see that everything else you’ve implied has nothing to do with the topic.

If actual scientists however are nothing but “some morons” for you, you’re simply incorrigible and ever conversation with you over this is pointless.

Care for some actual science? You’re making some extraordinary claims with very simplistic statements relating an interdisciplinary, highly complex field of research. There is not one single point in development when maturity is reached, there are different, simultaneous processes involving different aspects of development and maturity.

Searching for Signatures of Brain Maturity: What Are We Searching For?

(…) For the current discussion, the key point is that there is no single progression that encompasses functional maturation. Neural activity intensifies and reduces, varies quantitatively and qualitatively, in linear and nonlinear ways that are both linked to—and independent of—behavioral differences across development. Each of these patterns reflects developmental progress, but the wide range of ‘‘journeys’’ prohibits a simple definition of what emerging brain functional maturity looks like. (…)

Cognitive and affective development in adolescence

(…) As reviewed in the accompanying article by Paus [5] there is growing evidence that maturational brain processes are continuing well through adolescence. Even relatively simple structural measures, such as the ratio of whiteto-gray matter in the brain, demonstrate large-scale changes into the late teen-age years [6–8]. The impact of this continued maturation on emotional, intellectual and behavioral development has yet to be thoroughly studied, but there is considerable evidence that the second decade of life is a period of great activity with respect to changes in brain structure and function, especially in regions and systems associated with response inhibition, the calibration of risk and reward, and emotion regulation. Contrary to earlier beliefs about brain maturation in adolescence, this activity is not limited to the early adolescent period, nor is it invariably linked to processes of pubertal maturation (Figure 1). (…)

Behavioral and Neural Pathways Supporting the Development of Prosocial and Risk-Taking Behavior Across Adolescence

(…) Consistent with prior work showing that risk-taking behavior increases and peaks during adolescence (Gullone et al., 2000; Steinberg, 2007), we found that rebelliousness similarly increases from early adolescence to late adolescence before declining into adulthood. Research on the development of prosocial behavior however is mixed (for an overview, see Do et al., 2017). We observed a quadratic effect of age on a broad measure of prosocial behavior, peaking in mid-to-late adolescence, suggesting that, like rebelliousness, prosocial development follows a nonlinear age pattern that converges during late adolescence, although future studies should test if different age patterns are observed for different domains within prosocial behavior (such as helping and donating behavior). Our findings converge on the hypothesis that the development of rebellious and prosocial tendencies peak during late adolescence relative to earlier or later ages (Do et al., 2017), thus highlighting late adolescence as both a window of vulnerability and opportunity (…)

But fake meats don’t hurt anyone at all, not even indirectly. With your other examples one could argue that it’s desensitizing to the real thing. But eating seitan instead of meat is a conscious decision that probably even reinforces how unethical it was to begin with to kill an animal for this.

It has been thoroughly debunked.

It has not. Greetings, a psychologist.

The Tanner scale measures sexual development. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with general maturity, it just measures if the external sexual characteristics have come in.

At the end of the war literal children were being drafted. Are you seriously arguing that we should kill a 13 year old because he got a threatening letter and followed it’s instructions?

You’re stupid for what you’re doing. Physical harm isn’t the only form of serious damage we can do to each other and this should be apparent for everyone having lived this life for more than 5 minutes. You can absolutely destroy a life without even touching a person, and by the nature of society being a common agreement on how we want to live together you absolutely shouldn’t be free to do so.