4 ms·
I’m sorry, but this is totally demented. Everybody is born at a specific location at a specific moment In time — in relativistic parlance, an ‘event’. It’s set
by qubex 7y ago
I’m sorry, but this is totally demented. Everybody is born at a specific location at a specific moment In time — in relativistic parlance, an ‘event’. It’s set in stone. Allowing people to essentially change history for the sake of circumventing a presumed avenue for ‘discrimination’ is an argument why there should be laws and mechanisms in place to avoid that discrimination from being legal, not for tinkering
with the data.
What if that guy moved his birthdate twenty years into the future, but his mother had died when he was fifteen? His birth certificate would no longer make any sense, because he’s be born from a deceased woman. What of the fiscal benefits his family received as a result of his birth? Do they get returned?
This is dumb beyond belief.
- lmilcin 7y agoWhile it might seem dumb for you or me there were other dumb things, historically, that don't seem dumb anymore. It is much better to try be civil and debate (use/respond to arguments in logical way) if your aim is to change people's minds about the issue you felt need to comment.
- qubex 7y agoI am being civil. Saying that something is dumb as bricks when it is indeed dumb as bricks is actually a valid, factual, and neutral observation. Case in point: having read the article in it’s entirety I raised an exception that is consistent with the proposal (that one can only decree oneself to be younger), averted all the obvious riffraff (such as one merely declaring oneself underage in order to avoid prosecution & cetera), and raised an objection (incompatible chronology of individual’s birth certificates and mother’s death certificate) that the author had not addressed. If you are so sanguine about debating soundly, please indicate how you would address the situation I conjectured.