Examples of letter of reconsideration for job

Wake up, Dickheads! It's time for Faust!

2012.04.05 16:54 Wake up, Dickheads! It's time for Faust!

A fan-run subreddit for discussion of RedLetterMedia related things, but also to discuss Movies, TV shows, Video Games and basically anything RedLetterMedia discusses. Egg Salad is Here!
[link]


2011.12.25 00:33 blindteach Career Guidance

A place to discuss career options, to ask questions and give advice!
[link]


2011.03.30 16:39 HotDinnerBatman Unsent Letters

A place for the letter you never sent.
[link]


2024.05.21 15:23 digivice1999 [ ABOUT CALLOSIS UQ & GUILD 10 P.M ]

[ ABOUT CALLOSIS UQ & GUILD 10 P.M ]
[ CALLOSIS UQ ]
  • Callosis UQ
    This time we introduce Player "Calosis UQ", he is the Guild Leader of the Guild [ TEAM 10 P.M ]. He has a "DeadFish" face and wear a golden armor, he is a "BlackCompany S-L@V-E" but he also holds an important position in the IT Company, he goes to work feeling tired and impatient and His heart is always on the Retirement Plan Letter in his pocket, his Ingame name can also be understood as "Karoshi" (search GG for more)
    The condition to join the "10 P.M" Guild is that all Members belong to the "Working Class" so most of the Guild members often have a "DeadFish" face like the Guild Leader and they often Log In to the Game quite late (Meaning for the guild name)
    Guild 10 P.M is one of the guilds allied with Guild "WOLF GANG"
    Callosis UQ has the Job "Mystic Sword" which is one of the highest branches of the Magic Sword Class, by tearing a page from the Grimoire (Spellbook) and placing it on the sword, the sword is Magically Enchanted based on the magic based on that page. It's a good Class but usually not as famous as the Job "Sword Saint / Kensei" (used by Psyger-100) due to its not as flashy appearance.
    The truth is, although Callosis UQ is not the person with the highest Player Skill in the Guild or Log In as much as other Members, all Guild Members completely agree that only Callosis UQ is the most suitable to be the Guild Leader due to skills such as: " Planning ability, Budget construction ability, schedule adjustment ability, On-site Response Ability, External Negotiation Ability, Interpersonal Relationship buffering ability... " All Skills needed in a Company are so High that all members everyone agrees that Callosis UQ is the only one at the top of the " TEAM 10 P.M.'' Even without HOLY SWORD , the dazzling light of the Santetsu sword attracts the Working Class─
    Callosis UQ has high command ability and is also skilled enough to both Attack and Magic Support and even Support Sunraku (who is very difficult to Support due to his terrifying Speed ​​and the influence of Lycaon Scar), Callosis UQ commands the Players in the Guild and outside the Guild in the Arc "DRAGON DISASTER WAR", Is 1 of 2 Guild Leaders (the other being Psyger-100) who impresses and is praised by [ HEAVENLY SUPREME - SIEGWURM ] (1 OF 7 COLOSSI).
    Callosis UQ is one of the Players who agreed to join the Dispatched campaign [ THE INEXHAUSTIBLE - GOLDUNINE / BOSSDUNINE ] (1 OF 7 COLOSSI) organized by Sunraku and is also one of the 5 Members of the Party [ DRAGON HUNTING GATHERING ] organized by Sunraku to conquer The 10th True Dragon [ FEAR OF BLADE - TOMAHAWK ] Defeating Tomahawk causes Members' weapons to receive Dragon Buster Power and change shape and the player to receive the job Class [ Dragon Buster ].
    The Emblem Flag of the 10 P.M Guild is an image of Gears (Clogs) rotating forever in the night sky, symbolic of how the Guild operates.
    By: @RoolSaucy
    Series: Shangri-la Frontier Chap 30 Link:https://twitter.com/RoolSaucy/status/1332386075671625729?t=Lca2QuiPA9TOtyeJpQ-jnw&s=19
submitted by digivice1999 to ShangriLaFrontier [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:20 JAThrowaway52 Declaration of Name Change

Hi All,
I recently got a new job and need to fill out a form for working with children etc as it is a job in a school - it asked about previous names and I am wondering what the consequences are if I fail to state my deadname. I had my name changed over 4 years ago - while I was still under 18 and I’m wondering if that changes anything as nothing I have done as an adult has used that name.
Also what would happen if I did fail to include that information? (I don’t have proof of a name change as all I ever received was the updated birth certificate and no change of name letter)
I am in NSW if that helps.
Thanks!
submitted by JAThrowaway52 to transgenderau [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:19 sloaneysbaloneys Neighbor Abandoned House?

I hope I don't sound like an asshole here. I've got a neighbor next to me who's kind of a weird guy with an even more bizarre girlfriend (she has lots of strange side businesses, but seems to end up sued in the end after she cuts and runs). He lost his job in Feb/March.
Anyway, since moving in, they've never touched their lawn, and after the drought we had last year, the entire yard wound up dying. Anything that was left, was killed by the leaves he never raked in the fall. A lot of that is likely due to the neighbors prior who planted grass that had to be watered constantly and was maintained by a lawn service, so the yard was weak to begin with. Now nature is taking it back and weeds are growing in its place. Big ones. Which is attracting some new animals. We had a big storm come through, they lost a lot of branches, so we cleaned them up because they were blocking the sidewalk. That was when we realized we haven't seen them in a while.
They normally use their garage for cars, but for the last 2-3 weeks (maybe more?) their car has been in their driveway and the same package sits on their porch. I don't know if they've just abandoned the house and left? I'm worried because of the cut-and-run shady business history that the same thing is happening to the house and it's going to attract criminals or squatters. Something similar happened to a house at the end of the street a few years ago and it turned into a drug den.
I would file a city ordinance report, but they'll just send a letter. Which the neighbors won't receive, because they're gone. I think.
If they're not gone, then I'm very concerned whoever is in the house is dead. The car in the driveway has me a little nervous, I find it odd that they would leave behind a Mercedes. He sold his truck, the only other vehicle was a muscle car that they either took or is still sitting in the garage.
Do I call the police and have them do a welfare check?
submitted by sloaneysbaloneys to homeowners [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:16 Rich-Boysenberry-293 Interview Questions

I'm not sure if this is place to ask for help, but at this point I'm out of options.
Currently pursuing a Bachelors degree in Foundation Phase teaching, and as part of an assignment I need to interview a teacher, and I don't currently have the means to do in person interviews.
If there's anyone who can help me by answering the following questions, that would be amazing😁
1.What is the most rewarding aspect of your job?
  1. Give examples of aspects of your job which are challenging.
  2. In what way are these challenging? Explain.
    1. What professional standards do you draw on to guide your effectiveness as a teacher?
    2. What advice would you give to a pre-service teacher who is just starting their journey of becoming a teacher?
submitted by Rich-Boysenberry-293 to Teachers [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:10 Ok_Independence_3982 I hate my husband and Father in Law, I wish I never had kids

So I (F27) and my husband (M32) have been together for a little over 5 years. In that 5 years I have worked with him and his dad about 3 times.
His dad fired me the first time I worked with them as "it just isn't working out". It wasn't working out because I didn't have anything to do and he was mad I just sat there even though I had done everything.
The second time I worked with them I quit. My husband became very difficult at work and home. He would also try to "relay" information to me that his dad told me. When I would ask questions, he would make up answers because his dad and his conversation didn't get that far. Example: he would tell me his dad wants me to look at food truck ideas. I would ask what kind of food truck is it that he wants, he would say hamburgers, I'd talk to his dad the next day and his dad would say he was only thinking about it and isn't ready to do research yet and that he does not want anything to with hamburgers.
This time I'm "working" with them and my job is basically to watch our 1 year old and keep track of job expenses. It's not a lot, but I manage. I was just informed that once my other children are out of school that I am not to come back because it is too hard for my husband and FIL to work due to them wanting to spend time with the baby.
It's not my fault that they can't prioritize. Not to mention they rarely do anything with the baby as they ARE working. My husband gets mad if I ask him for help or a diaper while he is in the office because he is "working". So now they are basically taking away my income to split between the both of them and have told me to stay home with the baby.
I have depression and a lot of it stems from being home consistently and feeling trapped. So we are losing $200 a week and the little adult interaction I get is going away too.
I am starting to wish I never had kids because I can't work or do anything because we can't afford daycare, the two older ones (they were kind of adopted) the dad rarely pays child support and their mom will never help with them as she's on drugs, the older ones also refuse to do basic chores, even when I'm working (full time/part time/any amount) the responsibility of the kids is solely on me, I have to constantly fight with my 3 kids dad because 2 of them are behind and he doesn't want to believe it, he's also trying to force me to home school them and I am no teach, and then the baby is 100% on me regardless of whether my husband is home. He wants to play his games or whatever. He refuses to get up with the baby in the morning and wants me to wake him uo for work and if I need help, but even when I do he WONT get up.
I'm at my wits end. I'm spiraling and holding on for dear life at this point. I'd never say this anywhere else. I hate I feel this way and just wish I could disappear. I'm burnt out.
submitted by Ok_Independence_3982 to offmychest [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:09 Long_Blueberry29 Reasonable adjustments for Veterinary Work

Hey everyone
So I’m currently going through the pathway for getting assessed with ADHD. I’m 28, a new mum and a veterinary nurse. I have been qualified for 2 years, prior to that I was training for 3-4 years so this is the longest job I’ve ever had and stuck with. I usually get bored and leave jobs but this is my dream.
Basically I’m currently on maternity leave and due to return next month and my mental health coordinator has told me to ask for reasonable adjustments at work. I’m clueless tbh so I had a look online and some things really popped out and looks beneficial BUT are not possible in my industry.
Just wondered if any vet nurses/nurses/vets/vet techs had any examples of how they manage their ADHD at work. I lose focus, I hyperfocus, I’m so easily distracted, I forget things and if I’m honest, the idea of sitting down and thinking of everything is so overwhelming at the moment so I need some help! It’s much appreciated.
Thank you!
submitted by Long_Blueberry29 to adhdwomen [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:09 Paradox_HS Post-Uni Job Hunting Anxiety

Hi all!
I don't intend for this post to be too much of a woe is me, my life decisions coming back to haunt me kind of post. I'm mostly looking for advice regarding next steps, and if there are things i'm missing.
I'm from the UK (27M) and i've just wrapped up my Degree. I've previously been in this position after briefly studying Accountancy in College in 2013 and having a mental breakdown which pushed me into leaving and looking for work since. Besides one admin related job I received three years after leaving college that I left due to apathy, I pursued work in Esports until 2019 where I got my A-Levels in College for Game Design and my degree from '21-24 in Esports.
At the time of writing, I have absolutely zero idea on what I want to do with my career at this point and have received very little practical advice on the subject. Most of the jobs I see online in my region of the UK are mostly revolved around Sales or Marketing, which as an introvert with very few personal acquaintances I know i'm terrible at. (I've been told that i'm fairly kind and nice to be around in person, but I am terrible in front of a crowd or pitching ideas) Ideally i'd like to explore Events Management (Either Digital or Physical) but there appears to be very little availability in that market for uni graduates, and i'm finding my options to be more and more limited by the day.
My parents are both on 3+ hour drives (in my mother's case, 8+) away from me, so I also have constant anxiety over moving back in and trying to apply digitally from there. When I was in the aforementioned job hunting time from '13-'19 I was stuck in a remote part of the country, taking care of my brother with downs syndrome and my mental health nosedived. I genuinely don't know if I can handle being put under a similar situation now in 2024.
The advice I have been given mostly consists of: 'Just apply for everything until you make it'. Which frankly doesn't help me when i'm put on the spot and asked: "Why do you want this job" and having to desperately avoid answering with: "So I don't fall into depression and end up homeless." Like, today for example I was brought in for a Group Interview at the local theatre for a Marketing Role and I was so clearly out of my depth that I couldn't present ideas better than the two guys at my table who were clearly already invested into marketing and/or knew more about the location than me.
Do I think I could've done more to prepare? Absolutely. I could've looked into actual plays ahead of time rather than bouncing off of people, or tried to present ideas more coherently, but I knew the role wasn't for me and the interviewees most likely could tell. I'm having a very difficult time envisioning this not being a recurring problem when every interview will be based on how I can present myself, rather than skills based work. Since I believe I definitely have the skill capacity to be able to engage in the average role a uni grad would be expected to perform, but I can't show it in those kinds of settings.
Tl;dr; Older Uni Graduate has zero ideas what he wants to work as, and is struggling on how to overcome Social Anxiety & Autism (and likely undiagnosed depression) in order to get a job after University when nothing in his field of study is on offer.
submitted by Paradox_HS to Healthygamergg [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:06 Paracheirodon_ssp How does my résumé look now?

How does my résumé look now?
Am I on the right track with résumé part 2, electric boogaloo? Should I make my bullet points more concise or push to make them more specific? Anything irrelevant or too repetitive? To me it seems like I'm repeating the same things for each job. I'm prepared to elaborate on each point if questioned with specific examples. I also have a portfolio of materials I've made and student work examples.
submitted by Paracheirodon_ssp to teaching [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:01 JujoBearston Warehouse 31

Warehouse 31
~Jamesport Mornings~ (This is an original image that I generated and claim ownership of for this story.)
Lighting rips across the dark, cloudy skies as thunder booms and rolls behind. It rains often in ~Jamesport~, so far be it for a measly storm to keep the busy residents of this industrial city down; especially not down at the docks. Locally known as '~The Brine~'; the South East district of Jamesport is it's lifeblood. A good portion of the social structure in Jamesport resides here as well. Product brings profit, and profit brings bigger business. With ships coming and going at all hours, numerous factories and many businesses scattered about, most residents find themselves within The Brine for one reason or another.
A younger man with short, messy brown hair sits in a cold steel chair behind a large research table. Dozens of scientists and engineers operating large machines scurry throughout the room. "Not exactly the ancient ruins or dusty tombs I'm used to., but for the pay this job is offering, it must be something worth researching." Geoffrey thought to himself as he flipped through an old leather bound book. It's been nearly thirty minutes since he arrived, other than the burly, suited doorman that escorted him within the building, nobody has even looked in his direction.
The Jamesport Museum of Ancient Arts had recently put out an urgent request amongst various newspapers and criers all across the city for any mythologists, historians, really any researchers with enough knowledge and credentials to pass a formal exam to qualify for the job offer. The letter he received said Geoffrey was one of three who was accepted as a candidate and to meet at a large warehouse in the Dock Ward marked 'Building 31'. "Only two other possible candidates for this offer?" Geoffrey thought to himself as his head swiveled around the room, "I wonder if this is to be a team project or if they are looking for an independent researcher? Well I suppose I'll just have to be extra charming to whomever comes to collect me."
Setting Information -OP Time Zone is EST -Early Years of Steam and Electricity -Any Romantic/Intimate Scenes will be Fade-To-Black -Fantasy Rules Applicable (magic, supernatural, monsters, etc) -Usage of Adult Themes Allowed (drugs, violence, death, betrayal, etc) As of 05/21/24 at 9:00am EST, 0/3 Player Character Slots Filled, Play Can Start At Any Time
OP's Player Character Name: Geoffrey Windmoon Occupation: Archaeologist Father- William Windmoon, Historian. Mother- Cassandra Windmoon, Librarian. Age: 27 // Gender Identity: Male // Race: Human
Character Inspiration As Shown Below:
Character Art is from Google Image Search Results (I do not own nor did I commission or create this design)
submitted by JujoBearston to PBPForums [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:01 FelicitySmoak_ Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - Jackson v. AEG Live Day 15

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - Jackson v. AEG Live Day 15
Trial Day 15
Katherine, Rebbie and Trent Jackson are at court.
LA Times reported that the Jacksons offered a settlement.
Kevin Boyle , a lawyer for Katherine Jackson and Michael's kids , said they offered to settle the lawsuit against AEG, but that they never got an answer. Kevin Boyle said the family made the offers in January & March. Boyle would not provide details but said AEG's insurance would have paid, which means they could have settled the case without them paying a dime of their money. He said AEG has never offered to settle & they haven't apologized.
Marvin Putnam, an attorney for AEG, said it was inappropriate to discuss settlement discussions:
"We don't settle matters that are utterly baseless. We believe that is the case in this matter. I can't see why we would consider a settlement as anything other than a shakedown"
CNN Reports there was a snack controversy during trial: AEG lawyers gave a bag of peppermint candy to the bailiff to hand out to the jury this week. Even Katherine Jackson enjoyed the treat but Jackson's lawyer raised an objection, suggesting jurors might be influenced if they realized the source of the sweets. A compromise was reached. Each side can provide snacks for jurors, but they'll be placed at the bailiff's desk before jurors enter court so they have no clue who brought it.
Shawn Trell Testimony
Jackson direct
AEG Live General Counsel, Shawn Trell, told jurors that he had forgotten that Kenny Ortega was working under a signed contract.
Trell said he met with his attorneys last night and reviewed one doc -- Kenny Ortega's contract.
"He had a written contract," Trell said. "I remember the email dynamic. I'm not too proud to admit that I didn't recall the cover contract," Trell said he was changing his previous testimony to add that Ortega had a written contract, not only emails between him and AEG
Next topic was Insurance: Cancellation/Non-Appearance/Sickness. Trell said he started working on insurance for the tour in November of 2008. Panish showed several chains of emails where the parties talked about the insurance for the tour
Email from Bob Taylor insurance broker to Trell on 1/7/09:
"Prior to speaking with carriers we ask the artist to attend medical with a doctor...A full medical with both blood/urine tests. The doctor also wants to review the medical records over the last 5 years to ensure full disclosure. Insurers require further medical examination to be carried out by their nominated doctor. They may restrict illness coverage or death from illness coverage until this examination has taken place"
Email from 4/30/09 - Wooley to Trell :
"We have no coverage against Michael sickness unless and until he submits to another medical in London
Email from 5/28/09 - Trell to Taylor:
"We really need to get that medical done"
Email from 6/23/09 - Trell to Taylor :
"Any update on the availability of Term insurance?" (life insurance)
Trell said if they secured life insurance, they would get money if Michael died.
"We would get the money owed to us, yes," Trell testified.
Trell also said he continued discussions with an insurance broker about additional coverage to recoup AEG Live's investment if the tour had to be canceled.
Email from 6/24/09 -Taylor to Trell :
"Insurers have refused to move on this. Huge amount of speculation in the media regarding artist's health. They feel if they're to consider providing illness to cover this particular artist, they must have very through medical report"
Email from 6/25/09 - Gongaware to Taylor :
"If we don't get sickness coverage, we are dropping this policy"
Email from 6/25/09 - Taylor to Gongaware :
"The consultation in London is critical. The doctor is holding the afternoon of the 6th July open at Harley St. But keep in mind the visit could take 2 hours plus"
Next topic: Budget/Costs. Panish showed an email from AEG's Rick Webking to Michael's estate with 1st report of artist advances/expenses. This was a letter sent to the estate containing the expenses incurred, Trell said.
"It seems to me we submitted this report for their review, I don't see any request for payment," Trell said.
Trell said he spoke with Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware about Michael's physical condition prior to coming to testify.
"I had heard about rehearsals in which Mr. Jackson was fantastic," Trell said
Trell said he's aware of email from Ortega saying doctor was not allowing Michael to attend rehearsal on June 14, 2009.
"I was aware of the doctor not allowing him to attend rehearsal," Trell said
Email from 6/17/09 from Phillips:
"...Ortega, Gongaware, Dileo, and his doctor Conrad from Vegas and I have an intervention with him to get him to focus and come to rehearsal"
Email from 6/17/09 from Gongaware to Phillip's assistant:
"We need a physical therapist and a nutritionist"
Email from Production Manager - Gongaware/Phillips on 6/19/09 :
"Paul/Randy I'm not bring a drama queen here. Kenny asked me to notify you both Michael was sent home without stepping foot on stage. He was a basket case and Kenny was concerned he would embarrass himself on stage, or worse yet, be hurt. The company is rehearsing right now, but the DOUBT is pervasive"
Email from Randy Phillips to Tim Leiweke on 6/19/09 :
"We have a huge problem here."
"I think he recognized there was a problem on the 19th," Trell said. "I would take it seriously, as I believe Mr. Phillips did."
Trell agreed with a statement by plaintiff's attorney, Brian Panish, that company executives knew by then there was a "deep issue" with Jackson
Does Trell consider that exchange a "red flag" that AEG Live should have noticed, Panish asked.
"I would take it seriously, as I believe Mr. Phillips did," Trell answered. "I don't know I would use the word 'red flag'
One of the emails shown to the jury was from Jackson estate co-executor John Branca, sent 5 days before Jackson's death & marked 'confidential':
"I have the right therapist/spiritual advisosubstance abuse counselor who could help (recently helped Mike Tyson get sober and paroled) Do we know whether there is a substance issue involved (perhaps better discussed on the phone)
The email was sent the same day that a meeting was held at Jackson's home with Murray. No further info given to jury.
Trell said Mr. Phillips never told him about this email
Email from Ortega to Randy Phillips on 6/20/09: (chain of emails)
"I honestly don't think he is ready for this based on his continued physical weakening and deepening emotional state"
Trell said he didn't see these emails. He said he spoke with Randy Phillips about Phillips' perception of Michael, in order to prepare for testifying, but not about specific emails. Trell has been designated as the most qualified person to speak on behalf of AEG
Email from Phillips to Gongaware on 6/20/09 at 1:52 am :
"Tim and I are going to see him tomorrow, however, I'm not sure what the problem is Chemical or Physiological?"
From Gongaware to Phillips, on 6/20/09 at 5:59 am :
"Take the doctor with you. Why wasn't he there last night?"
From Phillips to Gongaware, on 6/20/09 at 2:01 pm :
"He is not a psychiatrist so I'm not sure how effective he can be at this point obviously, getting him there is not the issue. It is much deeper"
Trell said Randy Phillips went to a handful of rehearsals, three at the Forum and two at Staples Center. The head of the marketing department attended rehearsal on June 23, 2009.
"She was blown away by it," Trell testified.
He said he was unaware of issues with Jackson at rehearsals.
"I knew of no problems with Michael Jackson at all",Trell testified.
Trell said he never saw the emails from Phillips directing people to exclude images from This Is It of Michael looking "skeletal" while rehearsing.
"What were his observations of Michael's physical condition during rehearsal," Trell said. "I asked for his (Phillips) personal opinion."
Next line of questioning is about human resources and background checks. Trell said they can be valuable and useful tools when hiring. Background check costs around $40 to $125. Trell said AEG Live could afford this fee. "We don't do background checks on independent contractors," Trell said. Trell said he was involved in the hiring by AEG Live for the This Is It tour. His department was responsible for retaining independent contractors. Trell said he is not familiar with background check process for hiring.
"I am not familiar with the process of doing background checks," Trell said. "No training."

Panish: "There was no hiring criteria for the This Is It tour, correct?"
Trell: "Not to my knowledge"
Trell testified that when it comes to independent contractors, they have either worked with the artists, AEG or known in the industry. Trell agreed that no background check was done on anyone working on the This Is It tour. AEG Live General Counsel Shawn Trell told jurors that no legal or financial checks were done involving Conrad Murray or anyone else who worked as an independent contractor on the This Is It shows.
Depending on the nature of the position, a background could be done, Trell said, like for potential employees in the financial area. Trell said he thought a background check would be appropriate for people working in financial roles, but not tour personnel who weren't employees of AEG
As to independent contractors, Trell said there's no supervision and monitoring like there's for employees
Panish: "You don't do anything to check into background, supervise or protect the artist?"
Trell: "No, safety is a concern"
Trell said that AEG did not hire Murray, that the doctor was like many independent contractors,
"When they leave the environment, what they do on their own time is their own business"
Trell testified he doesn't believe the artist is more at risk because AEG Live doesn't do background checks
"We did nothing to monitor Dr. Murray," Trell said. "We did not monitor whatever it was that he was doing, no."
"It called for Michael Jackson being able to terminate Dr. Murray at will," Trell said about the contract. "If the concerts didn't go forward, and he was terminated under this provision, Dr. Murray would not be paid going forward," Trell explained
As to Dr Murray being under dire financial straits, Trell said that he doesn't know if he agrees with it, everyone's perception is different
Trell: "I certainly wasn't aware of it at the time"
Panish: "Because you didn't check, right?"
Trell: "That's right"
"I don't think conflict of interests are a good thing, and we would want to prevent it," Trell said
Email from Kathy Jorie to Shawn Trell on 6/24/09 at 12:54 am:
Subject: Revised agreement with GCA Holdings/Dr. MurrayIt had two attachments Attachments: Revised Michael Jackson -AEG GCA Holdings Murray Agreement 6-18-09 Final MJ -- AEG GCA Holdings Agreement (Dr. Murray) 6-23-09
Email chain from 6/23/09, 5:39pm from Jorrie to Wooley, Murray
Subject: RE: Michael Jackson - Revised Agreement with GCA Holdings/Dr. Murray Email:
"I have redlined the Word version so that you can see all of the revisions. In addition, I've attached clean PDF version for execution" (The email says that if Dr. Murray approved it, he was to print it, sign and send it back to Jorrie)

Panish: "Did Ms. Jorrie call this contract a draft?"
Trell: "She called it a Final Version"
"Every document is a draft until it is executed," Trell said.
Panish showed emails exchanged among AEG executives that contained drafts of Murray's contract. Although Murray had signed a contract with the company, neither Jackson nor anyone from AEG had added their signatures. Trell testified that a copy of the contract had never been sent to Jackson
With Trell on the stand, Panish played part of an interview that AEG Live President Randy Phillips gave to Sky News television soon after Michael's death.
"This guy was willing to leave his practice for a very large sum of money, so we hired him," Phillips said.
Panish also showed jurors an e-mail between AEG lawyers suggesting that Phillips told other interviewers AEG Live "hired" Murray.
Panish: "Isn't it true that Randy Phillips made numerous comments that AEG Live hired Dr. Murray?"
Trell: "I know he has made that statement"
Panish said AEG higher-ups became concerned after Phillips made such admission. Trell said he didn't know if that was true. Bruce Black is the General Counsel for parent company of AEG and AEG Live. Michael Roth is AEG's media relations
Email from Kathy Jorrie to Bruce Black and Michael Roth on 8/25/09:
Subject: AEG Live president says AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray
Panish shows Trell a deposition, under oath, given by insurance broker Bob Taylor on another case. Trell said he has never seen or read it. Trell denied having a telephone conversation with Mr. Taylor where Trell asked him if a doctor's compensation was covered in the insurance.
Panish: "Does that refresh your recollection that AEG was employing Dr. Murray?"
Trell: "Mr. Taylor has this completely wrong"
After lunch break, Brian Panish asked if Shawn Trell wanted to change anything else in his testimony, to which he said "No"
Bruce Black, attorney for Anschutz, was present in the meeting with LAPD. Trell met with the police on 1/12/10. Trell told the police that day that Dr. Murray would receive $150,000 compensation per month. Trell also said that Dr. Murray requested and AEG would provide necessary medical equipment and a nurse. More than five months after Jackson's death, Trell said, he informed LAPD detectives that Murray initially requested $5 million to join the tour but eventually agreed to a salary of $150,000 a month for 10 months.
Panish: "As far as you know, all the agreements written for TII tour was done under AEG Live Productions, right?"
Trell: "Yes"
Panish: "Was Dr. Murray trying to help AEG get insurance?"
Trell: "The policy was in both names, so he was helping both parties"
Trell said Dennis Hawk, who represented Michael, was in touch with Taylor regarding the insurance
Panish: "As of June 2009, you don't even know whether Mr. Jackson had a personal manager
working for him, right?"
Trell: "Well, my understanding at the time there were a couple of people acting in that capacity"
Email on 6/2/09 from Randy Phillips to Jeff Wald:
"Jeff, remember getting Michael to focus is not the easiest thing in the world and we still have no lawyer, business manager, or, even real manager in place. It is a nightmare!"
Trell said the only time he saw an artist's signature required to retain an independent contractor was for Dr. Murray. Trell said his understanding was that Dr. Murray worked for Michael for 3 years; didn't know how many times MJ saw Dr. Murray.
"I've never spoken with Dr. Murray ever. And I met/spoke with Mr. Jackson once," Trell said.

"He was a significant expense," Trell testified about Dr. Murray.
Trell said AEG Live didn't do anything to check Dr. Murray's competency as doctor, other than checking his physician license. Trell said AEG didn't do anything to determine Dr. Murray's financial conditions in 2009.
Jury was shown an email that Phillips sent to Kenny Ortega on night of June 20, 2009. It was email urging Ortega to stand down.
Email on 6/20/09 Phillips to Ortega :
"Kenny it's critical that neither you, me, anyone around this show become amateur psychiatrist/physicians. I had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray, who I am gaining immense respect for as I get to deal with him more. He said that Michael is not only physically equipped to perform & discouraging him to will hasten his decline instead of stopping it. Dr. Murray also reiterated that he is mentally able to and was speaking to me from the house where he had spent the morning with Michael. This doctor is extremely successful (we check everyone out) and does not need this gig so he is totally unbiased and ethical"
Panish asked Trell whether Phillips "characterization to Ortega, given no background check was done, was a lie". Trell responded that he didn't know what Phillips knew or was thinking when he wrote that email to Ortega. Trell also said he expected Randy Phillips to testify at some point during the trial, so he could address the email himself
Panish then asked Trell, "Sir, you never checked out one single thing about Dr. Murray -- you've already told me that, correct?"
"As of the date of the email, that would've been correct",Trell said.
When pressed by Panish, Trell said that Phillips' statement that Murray had been checked out, along with the executive's claim that the doctor 'does not need this gig' were inaccurate.
"I don't know where Randy's understanding or impression comes from", Trell said.
Trell testified that Phillips might have been "misinformed" or simply was stating his impression of the Las Vegas cardiologist
Panish: "But no one at AEG checked Dr. Murray to see if he was successful or not, isn't that true?"
Trell: "Yes"
Panish then asked several pointed questions about whether Shawn Trell agreed with Phillips telling Ortega they'd checked Murray out. One of Panish's questions was whether Trell thought Phillips' email was 'acceptable conduct'
Panish called Phillips' statement "a flat out lie" and asked Trell whether he agreed with it or if it signified how AEG did business. Trell said he didn't know what Phillips thought he knew when he wrote the message.
"I know this statement is not accurate, but you'd have to speak with Mr. Phillips about what he thought or meant in saying it," Trell said.

Panish: "That's a flat out lie, isn't it sir?"
Trell: "I don't know what Mr. Phillips intended to say, this should be a question to him"
Panish: "You don't know if he was successful or facing bankruptcy, did you?"
Trell: "No"
Trell: "I know the statement is not accurate. You have to speak with Mr. Phillips about what he meant to say"
Panish: "Do you agree with the CEO of your company making untrue statements?"
Trell: "I don't know that he didn't know it wasn't true when he said it"
Trell said Phillips never told him that he checked Dr. Murray out. As to reference in Phillips' email about Dr. Murray being unbiased, ethical, not needing this gig, Trell said it was Phillips' impressions. He said AEG typically only runs background checks on candidates applying for full-time jobs with AEG, not independent contractors.
Panish: "Isn't it true AEG Live does not do background check on independent contractors?"
Trell: "That's true"
Trell said that no one from AEG interviewed Dr. Murray because he was an independent contractor.
"Did anyone from AEG ever at any time interview Dr. Murray", asked Brian Panish
"No", Trell replied.
Panish showed a document used by AEG entitled "Disclosure and Authorization to Conduct Background Check". Doc is used for employment, promotion, retention, contingent or the rate staffing, consulting, sub-contract work, or volunteer work. Panish asked if there was any reason why Dr. Murray was not given a background check.
"He wasn't an employee, he wasn't applying for a full time position with the company," Trell explained.
Trell said theoretically they could've asked to check Dr. Murray's background and credit.
AEG Cross
Jessica Bina began her examination by showing the letter submitted by AEG's CFO to the Estate of Michael Jackson for their review. She asked Shawn Trell about the estimate presented to Jackson's estate that included Murray's $300k fees. She asked why it was prepared. Shawn Trell said it was done at the request of the estate. He said Jackson's estate wanted to know state of tour finances when Jackson died. Trell said the report was requested by the Estate after a series of meetings after Michael's death.
"The purpose of the meeting was to wind up the business affairs of the tour due to Michael's death", Trell said. "It was my understating in June Tohme was back in the picture in some capacity. I'm not sure which, Mr. DiLeo was in it too," Trell said
Bina: "Is there any request for payment?"
Trell: "No, there's no demand for payment, it's for review"
Stebbins Bina asked about the inclusion of Murray's fee in the document. Bina showed the report that was attached to the letter. Murray's fee on the document had a footnote. Trell read what that footnote said, and explained why estate wasn't asked for Murray's fee. Next to "Management Medical" there's a reference to footnote 3.
Note 3: 'Contract is not signed by Michael Jackson and such signature was condition precedent to any payment obligation' - Footnote on Murray fee.
Trell testified Webking, the CFO for AEG, did not ask Michael's Estate for payment of Dr. Murray's salary
"You testified you were somewhat confused (by the inclusion of the $300,000)?", Bina asked Trell as she projected the list, dated July 17, 2009, on a screen for jurors.
"Do you see there's something in parentheses?', Stebbins Bina asked, zooming in to blow up a footnote from AEG CFO Frederick Webking that stated Michael Jackson never signed Murray's contract, so its terms were not enforceable.
"Is Mr. Webking asking the estate to pay?", Stebbins Bina asked Trell. "No", he replied, explaining that upon reflection he believed Mr. Webking was just being 'thorough' by including the $300,000 as a budgeted cost.
"Did Mr. Webking make a mistake as you thought yesterday?",she asked.
"No, he did not", Trell answered
Second report made to the Estate on 9/18/09, there was no amount next to management medical. Stebbins Bina then showed a Sept. 2009 report of This Is It's finances to Michael Jackson's estate. Murray's fee is not listed in that document
Trell went through his job description with AEG. He said he has five lawyers in his department and has worked on thousands of agreements. Trell explained what PMK is -- Person Most Knowledgeable, identified by the company to testify on its behalf. Trell said he didn't know about all the topics he was designated, so he had to do some studying and interviews with people
As to Ortega's contract, Trell said he was aware of a string of emails being at least a part of the original agreement with Kenny.
"When we were done here yesterday, I looked at Kenny Ortega's original agreement," Trell said.
Trell noted he hadn't looked at Ortega's agreement since it was entered into in 2009. Before the afternoon break, Trell and jury were shown Kenny Ortega's tour agreement. It was signed in April 2009. The agreement was three pages of legalese, with several pages of emails attached that confirmed the terms. The first three pages included some paragraphs that described who owned the rights to This Is It content. A large number of emails are part of the agreement as exhibits. Trell said he recalled the emails exchange and admitted again not being proud of forgetting the cover contract portion. Bina showed Ortega's executed contract with everyone's signature on it. Trell said Kenny Ortega was paid after his contract was signed.
Trell, Phillips and Kathy Jorrie were involved in drafting and negotiating the contract with Michael Jackson. For MJ, Trell said Dr. Tohme Tohme and attorneys Dennis Hawk and Peter Lopez represented him. He said there were multiple drafts.
"It's my understanding they were talking to, or at least receiving offers from, a competitive of ours, Live Nation," Trell said.
Trell also said that before signing an agreement with AEG, Jackson had been considering a tour offer from its main competitor, Live Nation.
Bina showed the jury the final tour agreement. Trell said he went to MJ's home at Carolwood to sign it. Upon arrival, Trell said Mr. Jackson got up from where he was seated, and said 'Hi, welcome, I'm Michael." Trell said it was pretty funny, since he was a very distinct person. Trell said they shook hands, he had a good firm handshake and his voice was not what people think
"He popped up, came over, introduced himself, was very cordial, there was a real positive energy, good vibe in the room," Trell said. "He seemed genuinely enthused," Trell added. "He had the contract in front of him, said he read every page, seemed very enthused." Trell said they all signed it and Mr. Jackson was really keen on the 3-D stuff, that he was already down the road in his mind. "I was probably there just a little less than an hour. And that was the only time I met him," Trell recalled.
Bina discussed the contract for the tour agreement:
A first class performance by Artist at each show on each of the approved itineraries. Contract:
Artist shall perform no less than 80 minutes at each show, and the maximum show length for each show shall be 3.5 hours. Artist shall approve a sufficient number of shows on itineraries proposed by promoter or producer as to recoup the advances made.
Trell said compensation was agreed on 90-10 split. Artist received 90% of what's defined contingent compensation.
Trell explained to jury how concerts get paid for. One scenario is artist pays for production up front. A second scenario is that the promoter gives artist an advance, and then they use the money to put together the show. The third option, Trell said, is the artist pays someone like AEG Live to produce and promote the show, with costs to come out of their pay. Trell called the second and third option like an interest-free loan. In Jackson's case, AEG agreed to a 90/10 split of show's proceeds. Jackson would have received the 90% portion, Trell said. Jackson was also on the hook for a 5% production fee
AEG Live was promoter & producer.
"We advanced the money necessary to mount the tour," Trell explained. "It's interest free money".
Trell testified that Jackson's advance, which covered his $100,000-a-month rent on his mansion and a $3-million payment to settle a lawsuit that would free up his performance rights, was considered a loan to be paid back to AEG.
Part of the advance was to pay off the settlement agreement of $3 million in London court. The underlying dispute was that a company owned the rights for Jackson's live performance.
"The rights needed to be freed up," Trell said.
The advances were to be paid back to AEG Live before the split of revenue. Production Advances were capped to $7.5 million. Contract:
Artist was responsible for all the production costs in excess of the cap and had to reimburse promoter.
"Michael Jackson was known to have very elaborate productions," Trell said. "Production values can get significant, for lack of a better word, it really depends on how many bells and whistles they want," Trell said.
Trell said AEG would not advance money without the artist requesting it.
Trell said it's not only typical and customary, but standard and artist needs to secure either non-appearance or cancellation insurance. Their interest in the policy, Trell said, was to cover the advances and production costs incurred with the production of the show.
"If the were no obligations to AEG, the payout would go back to the artist", Trell explained, "It just recoups our loan made to the artist."
Trell was also asked about elements of tour insurance policies and an agreement with former manager Tohme Tohme. Jackson's contract called for him to represent to AEG that he didn't have any health conditions that would keep him from performing.
Contract:
Artistco hereby represents and warrants that artist does not possess any known health conditions, injuries or ailments that would reasonable be expected to interfere with Artist's first class performance at each of the shows during the term
Oh Tohme's $100k per month agreement, Trell was shown a January contract that Jackson signed to pay that amount. However, Trell said Tohme's agreement was predicated on Jackson getting tour cancellation insurance by a certain date. Deadline passed and by that point Tohme was no longer Jackson's manager, so he wasn't entitled to be paid his monthly fee.
January 24, 2009 -- agreement entered with Dr. Tohme Tohme. Trell said Michael was involved and signed this agreement. "This agreement was entered into January 26, Trell testified.
"There are conditions that needed to be met before any payment could be made."
One of the the conditions was placement of non-appearance insurance, Trell said. That placement was done in late April, early May. In May, AEG received letter from MJ saying Tohme didn't rep him anymore.
"No payments were ever made under this agreement," Trell explained.
Court Transcript
Rebbie Jackson attending court
https://preview.redd.it/mmatrsug5o1d1.jpg?width=443&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2bb18c8e5e6bca215719208409346bccaf96bc4
https://preview.redd.it/h6ywhnug5o1d1.jpg?width=443&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4576d97371141a308ad6300fb33400f28ed009e3
https://preview.redd.it/wd14srug5o1d1.jpg?width=508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31ded1abac7f1916fc67b5d0b264dd231b96f275
https://preview.redd.it/pvrb3vug5o1d1.jpg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e4e93a20eccf030747d4ee60a95365b5e41e9ce
https://preview.redd.it/yexbwrug5o1d1.jpg?width=419&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c26155b8478e7c48f8863d946b836f1ab2a13fe8
https://preview.redd.it/o6nzk0vg5o1d1.jpg?width=483&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f146baaaa738ec5fe700fa42aaf58e138f21165f
https://preview.redd.it/vuozioug5o1d1.jpg?width=431&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f229517cb96a8f80571439f6f0e27f8c6c7852bc
submitted by FelicitySmoak_ to WhereWasMJToday [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:01 John_Swift1 Organization - SHRM Topic

Quite a big chapter, but I feel like the crux of it revolves around organizational structures and development
Different Types of Organizational Structures
Organizational structures define the hierarchy in an organization, and determine the way information flows within it.
Functional: Traditional structure, includes divisions based upon specialty. Forms the well-known hierarchy of senior management, marketing, finance, human resources, and operations.
Centralized Structure Specialist staff, standardization, greater economies of scale. Lacks variety and job enrichment, greater bureaucracy Each specialist group answers to top management. Since each team works in silos, management is expected to guide all departments into one unit. Divisional: This structure groups individuals based on the products or projects they are undertaking. At the top is the CEO, and after them is a hybrid of functional grouping: public relations, legal, finance, global research, business development, and human resources
Decentralized Structure Senior management time freed up, motivation through greater decision powers Lack of specialization, extra processing This style blends the expertise of many different skill sets. Matrix: Combination of the functional and divisional structures. Companies are divided into departments of specialization, and then within those units, they are separated further
Organizational Development:
This is the process used to enhance the effectiveness of an organization and the well-being of its members through planned interventions
OD initiatives occur on both a large and small scale Goals are to improve: Productivity (effectiveness and efficiency) Employee satisfaction with the quality of their work life The organization’s ability to revitalize and develop itself over time. Organizational processes and outputs Organizational Development “Change Management” Initiatives
Focus on changing the entire system Link to the organization’s strategic plan Use applied behavioral science Help organizations solve their own problems Important: The whole system must change, not just a few components of the system OD Interventions:
OD interventions are appropriate when an organization:
Experiences a merger or acquisition that introduces a culture that is not compatible. Experiences low trust, high turnover, or high stress Lacks the ability to manage conflict. OD Intervention process:
Diagnose the environment Develop an action plan Evaluate the results HR Roles: Change agent, evaluator Sensitivity Training is a form of training with the goal of making people more aware of their own goals as well as their prejudices, and more sensitive to others and to the dynamics of group interaction.
Has been criticized for the emotional stress it creates for some participants. Quality management requires employees to rethink what they do and become more involved in workplace decisions.
Organizational citizenship is discretionary behavior that is not part of an employee’s formal job requirements, but that promotes the effective functioning of the organization.
The Delphi Method:
The Delphi Method is a qualitative forecasting method. It is a structured way of getting a group to examine an issue. Example below:
  1. Group of 4 people tasked with forecasting next quarter sales, each asked to come up with own reasoning in a report
  2. Moderator collects the 4 reports, removes the names and gives them back to the group to discuss.
  3. Now the group has 4 “anonymous” viewpoints they can consider. This eliminates any personal bias they might have towards other members, and focuses on the reports themselves.
  4. Steps 1–3 are repeated until the group can come to a consensus.
submitted by John_Swift1 to HumanResourcesExam [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 15:00 hellopriyasharma Use Your Creativity with English Worksheets for Nursery Class

Use Your Creativity with English Worksheets for Nursery Class
The English Worksheet for Nursery Class is a crucial tool for developing young learners' language foundations and should be included in the early education curriculum. Worksheets with imaginative designs have the power to pique kids' curiosity and increase their desire to learn English. This resource looks at creative ways to use English worksheets in early childhood education so that teachers may create a language-loving atmosphere that is enjoyable and stimulating. The objective is to successfully introduce basic English ideas while making learning as engaging and participatory as possible.
https://preview.redd.it/70gzvqii2s1d1.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=991fe0588a9be6677598b7e0370ac96fbb292893
Engaging Young Minds with English Worksheets
The use of English Worksheet for Nursery should be more than a mere paper-pencil activity. It should ignite curiosity, encourage exploration, and support cognitive development in young learners.
Story-Based Worksheets: Incorporate worksheets that are based on simple stories or familiar nursery rhymes. These can include sequencing activities, picture matching, or fill-in-the-blanks with words from the story.
Interactive Language Games: Convert traditional worksheets into interactive games. For example, a worksheet with pictures and words can be turned into a matching game where children match words to the correct pictures.
Art and Craft Integration: Merge art with language learning by including coloring, drawing, or cutting activities related to the words or letters being learned. This approach not only reinforces the learning objective but also supports fine motor skill development.
Use of Digital Platforms: Integrate technology by using a school parent app to share digital versions of English worksheets or interactive language games. This can also facilitate parental involvement in their child's learning process.

Themes and Topics for English Worksheets

Selecting themes and topics relevant to the children's experiences and interests can significantly enhance engagement and learning outcomes.
Daily Routines and Activities: Worksheets focusing on daily routines, such as meals, playtime, or getting ready for school, can help children relate their learning to their everyday life.
Nature and Environment: Worksheets that explore the natural world, including animals, plants, and weather, can spark curiosity about the environment while building vocabulary.
Festivals and Celebrations: Incorporating themes related to festivals, holidays, and celebrations introduces children to cultural diversity through language.

Skills Development Through English Worksheets

Effective Pre school Nursery English Worksheets target a variety of skills that are fundamental to language acquisition and overall development.
  • Vocabulary Building: Introduce new words in a thematic context, enhancing comprehension and expressive skills.
  • Phonemic Awareness: Activities focusing on sounds, rhymes, and initial phonics lay the groundwork for reading skills.
  • Listening and Comprehension: Worksheets that require following instructions or answering simple questions about a story improve listening skills and comprehension.
  • Writing and Fine Motor Skills: Tracing letters, writing names, or drawing lines between related items fosters early writing skills and fine motor control.

Tips for Maximizing the Impact of English Worksheets

Tailor Activities to Individual Needs: Customize worksheets to match the developmental level and interests of each child, ensuring that every learner finds the activities accessible and engaging.
  • Encourage Exploration and Discussion: Use worksheets as a starting point for discussions, encouraging children to ask questions and express their ideas related to the worksheet's theme.
  • Positive Reinforcement: Celebrate completion and effort, regardless of accuracy. Positive feedback encourages a love for learning and boosts confidence.
  • Incorporate Feedback and Reflection: Regularly assess the effectiveness of worksheets in achieving learning objectives and make adjustments based on observations and child feedback.

Conclusion

The English Worksheet for Nursery Class serves as an essential tool in early childhood education, offering diverse opportunities for language development, creativity, and cognitive growth. By adopting a creative and interactive approach, educators can transform the use of worksheets from a mundane task to an exciting learning adventure. Incorporating themes, integrating technology through tools like the school parent app, and focusing on a holistic skill set are key strategies for making English worksheets a valuable component of the nursery curriculum. As we move forward, the imaginative use of worksheets will continue to play a crucial role in nurturing proficient, enthusiastic young learners.
submitted by hellopriyasharma to u/hellopriyasharma [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:58 escareal i recommended my therapist to my close friend and im worried about couple things

my friend (17 f) has some problems with social anxiety and coming to school. there arent many good therapists around, and i (17 f) wanted to help her becasue i really care about her. so i told her that the therapist i go to is amazing and i really think she could help her. and i really do think that. now i just keep thinking about it and i really do have an attachment to my therapist. i feel like its special, at least to me. and im worried that it wont be anymore.
even now, before she even started going, i just know that id feel jealous if she talked about her therapy sessions. but to me, her feeling better and having a good therapist is more important.
i dont really talk about her in therapy, only a couple times, so i dont think that would be a problem. but there is just one thing that i want to tell my therapist about before she comes. i feel like i shouldnt do that, even though i dont mean it in a bad way or want to talk more about her later.. i want to mention to her about my friends struggles with empathy, because i mainly think that it could help her treat her better and also i think its something that possibly connects to other problems of hers.
but thats the only thing i want to say before she comes. i dont want to sound like i want to talk badly about her or something, i just think that its a big part of her that made our friendship harder in the past. - i wanted to know if i can just tell her about this? i dont want to talk about her much, i think our friendship is really special and i dont have any problems with her other than that.
i have my own theories as to why she might be acting the way she is, like her parents being less affectionate for example.. and i think thats quite an important thing to know? i realize that its her job to figure all that out, i just dont think my friend realizes all that and would want to mention her views on things to her since she knows that she shouldnt.
i really do want her to get help. im just not sure if its okay if i tell the therapist about that?
submitted by escareal to TalkTherapy [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:43 Voixmortelle Suggestions for how to make my girlfriend feel more like "one of the girls"

I'm a cis woman and my girlfriend is trans. She's 30 and her egg cracked around 26-27, but she hasn't done any of the medical transitioning she'd like to do because she's afraid. And for good reason, we live in the rural southeastern US where people aren't really accepting of trans folks much at all. She could lose her job and most of her family and friends if she fully came out and started transitioning, so she masks (mascs?) in public for the most part and only really presents femme around me and some of our friends.
Because she has such little time to be her real self, I like to try to make the most of it whenever she does. I like to plan little events and surprise her with them, just things that she missed out on by not being allowed to grow up as a girl. For example, me, her, and two of our closest girlfriends are doing a sleepover movie night in a couple of weeks and we're planning on doing all of the sleepover traditions. Cute pajamas, scary stories, painting each other's nails, eating a ton of junk food, all of that.
Since I grew up as a girl I don't really know what she might or might not feel like she missed. I don't really have a frame of reference, you know? And of course I could talk to her about it (and I have, don't worry), but I also like to surprise her so I was hoping for some advice from some other trans ladies.
My question is this: What "girly things" do you wish you could've done or been part of when you were younger? If you ARE younger, what things do you do or participate in that make you feel more like "one of the girls"? Preferably things I can somehow recreate for her, but even if not I'd like to hear y'all's stories.
submitted by Voixmortelle to MtF [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:42 Professional-Map-762 Let's Analyze the Inmendham vs Vegan Gains Debate: whether Value-realism is True (How 2 best argue defending it, going forward?)

How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!
submitted by Professional-Map-762 to Efilism [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:41 mneathery Newlife Fertility Clinic

Trigger warning- miscarriage
Long story short- my journey to a fertility clinic is due to my husband. He chose to get on Testosterone replacement therapy shortly after we started trying and miscarried. We also moved to a new state, Alabama, a month or so after we started trying. It’s officially been 2 years since our miscarriage. Last October we found out his sperm was extremely low count- he then got on all these supplements and his sperm count in January for up to a “normal count” but 24 ML compared to 135ml that he had before TRT is still upsetting to me. Anyway we live in an extremely small town and our only option is Newlife Fertility, they have a satellite office in our town of Dothan Alabama but their main office is in Pensacola. Met with the doctor after months of testing in February and he thinks we will be pregnant in 6 months and doesn’t even think we need to do IUI. I chose for us to do IUI. During the two IUI’s I noticed they have a schedule I need to go off of, not my own personal cycle. For example if a cycle for them starts on May 20th and my period starts May 16th I have to get on birth control from May 16th-20th to control my cycle to fit their needs since they are such a small office. They have also done IUI 12 hours after trigger and 60 hours after trigger shot. They also do not take progesterone sample day 21 or do any ultrasound AFTER IUI. After doing all my research and talking with friends in bigger cities I felt like something was off. I also recently found a new OB that I love and got a second opinion from her. She absolutely got upset and was like what are they doing here it sounds all wrong. They shouldn’t be putting me on BC and IUI should be done the day after trigger. I already paid for my third IUI and my OB wants me to come in on day 21 which is also tricky we don’t even really know when my day 21 is! Since I started my period but then had to get on Bc for 5 days? Anyway she said she can do two IUI’s with me after this round with Newlife but that’s it and then I need to move onto IVF.
My husband has a stressful job and refuses to get off TRT but is working with a urologist to adjust medication to up his count.
Has anyone had success with Newlife Fertility clinic if we have to go to the IvF route or success with a stubborn husband who needs to be on TRT? Any advice appreciated.
submitted by mneathery to IVF [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:40 Earth-is-Heaven Who Are You?

Who are you?
We define ourselves in innumerable ways. For example, through our nationality, gender, family role, job title, skills at math, ability at flamenco dancing, etc.
They all take the same form: "I am such-and-such."
We end up being a somewhat random collection of definitions. And these definitions are not static.
You lose your job: well, there goes your job title.
Your child has a child: well, now you're a grandparent.
You practice diligently at flamenco: well, congrats, you're a world-champion flamenco dancer.
None of it stays the same. It's all forever changing. How can you be that which is forever changing?
So, who are you really? You are THAT which doesn't change.
In each definition of yourself, you say "I am..." I AM is what you are. It is what never changes.
What is this I AM? It is being aware, the feeling of being alive right now.
You are noticing these words, reading them. Therefore, you must be alive. But how do you know you are alive?
It's not obvious how we know we're alive--we just KNOW. It's a sense of being present and aware, a sense of being. This is I AM. This is what you are.
I AM is so simple that we overlook it. It is before "I am such-and-such," before language entirely.
I AM is always here. In our memories of the past and thoughts of the future, there is the sense of being present, of I AM. As such, what you are is eternal.
If you try to find a boundary to I AM, there is none. Any boundary is just a thought. There is nothing in experience that is not contained within I AM. Thus, you are infinite.
You are this timeless, boundless I AM, here and now. It is pure Presence, God, Brahman, Buddha, Spirit. Just close your eyes and notice the sense of being present: you are THAT. 💎
submitted by Earth-is-Heaven to nonduality [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:35 CompetitionProper840 CS 9618/32 IMPORTANT

CS 9618/32 IMPORTANT
So concerning the controversy abt the set data type quesiton in paper 3 variant 2 since almost no teacher actually explained it and most of us solved it as enumerated To end this controversy I’d like to tell you that it is indeed in the psuedo code guide BUT FOR THE 2026 syllabus and teachers guide not this years syllabus so if you want to we can acc send an email to Cambridge mentioning that it wasn’t in our syllabus and they’ll figure it out when they see that only a few people solved it And they could actually remove the questions marks from the boundaries just like what happened with ICT this year and last year PS: look at the top right to see that it is acc of 2026 not this year
submitted by CompetitionProper840 to alevel [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:30 falloutboyzintheclub Looking for a minimum wage job

I can't believe I'm writing this, but I'm having a hard time finding a job for this summer. I'm a University student in Canada (Quebec) and absolutely cannot (!!!) find a minimum wage job.
I live in a smal city and don't have a car. So far, I've applied EVERYWHERE I can possibly work and get to by bus within an hour and a half. I did a mix of online applications and in person to see if maybe it would work better in person, but as expected they just told me to apply online (which I did!).
Now what?? Not a single callback, not a single interview, nothing!! They all tell me they're not actually looking for anyone or they straight up reject me for seemingly no reason (I got a rejection email from Walmart at one point). There are no other places I can apply to, what am I supposed to do?
I'm kind and respectful, I dress properly when I go in person, I shower, my CV has been checked by like four people at this point, I have a personalized cover letter for everywhere I apply to...
I don't know what to do at this point, I just want to work at Subway it's not that deep.
submitted by falloutboyzintheclub to jobhunting [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:26 Civil_Income_8043 Full time job on blue card visa, one mini job, and one freelance job?

Hi there - I really need some help and clarification around this. I could not find anything else online....
I read that there's a 48 hours per week cap but is that also considered if you're doing a freelance job?
For example, Im working a full time job.
I am also a fitness instructor at one studio (current mini job) - HIIT, but i also want to teach yoga. And I consider that to be the freelance job. What are the rules around this? And how would the freelance job be taxed?
Ideally I would work only about 6 hours on the HIIT, and 4 hours on the Yoga, on top of 40 hours per week on my full time. Usually after work and on the weekends.
Is this legal? Thank you so much and I appreciate any help.
submitted by Civil_Income_8043 to germany [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:25 Pure-Grapefruit-4696 [FOR HIRE] Freelance comic book letterer

[FOR HIRE] Freelance comic book letterer
Greetings, I am a freelance letterer looking for work for a publisher. Or some webcomic. Anything actually, I'm just eager to WORK MORE (I really love this job).
I have 4 years of experience, mostly lettering comics in my country, but our comic industry isn't that big at all, so at this point looking for work in other countries is a must if I want to grow as a professional.
Lettering portfolio: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Cp7mPe7lzGas8yvD59Frl0BqW3tyZI5j?usp=sharing
https://preview.redd.it/yhtsjpc3wr1d1.jpg?width=1897&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d48d7dafe23178bd51304dbf72a81d65150be2f
submitted by Pure-Grapefruit-4696 to ComicBookCollabs [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 14:19 ThrowRAfedupgf99 AITA for asking my bf (30M) to stop paying his ex wife's (30F) entire lifestyle?

And for the record, I'm 25 and I pay for my own life.
My bf David still lives with his parents but pays FOR HIS EX WIFE'S NINA'S ENTIRE LIFESTYLE.
Basically when they met, Nina was in a relationship with another man and guess what? That man supported Nina and her whole family. Nina fell in love with David but she was afraid of leaving her stable life behind and moving halfway across the world to be with David because she was afraid that she'd be left with nothing if things didn't work out. So David promised her that he'd always take care of her, no matter what happens.
Well guess what? Things didn't work out but David stayed true to his word.
I love that my bf is so reliable and responsible but what I don't love is that 1. she literally doesn't have a job and 2. she WANTED to live in this country in the first place, which is why she's still here now that her and David split up and 3. he's going above and beyond financial support. Like he's paying for her to live a pretty extravagant lifestyle. For example he's paying off her car, which was something like 70k ($). Nobody needs a car that expensive, LET ALONE A PERSON WHO HAS NO INCOME.
This whole fight started when David and I went to pick his grandma up from her place. Nina lives with David's grandma, btw. Nina was getting ready to go out and I was shocked to see all the expensive products she was using. I'm not really into beauty and stuff like that but even I knew that Nina had spent a lot of money on all that.
So later I just brought it up to David, telling him that she's spending his money on really frivolous but expensive stuff. And he told me that he knows, and that he doesn't mind because it makes her happy and he wants her to be happy because he loves her. I told him she's never going to get a job and support herself if she has him getting her everything she wants. A lot of words were exchanged but basically David got mad at me because he thinks I'm jealous about it, and that I have no right to be because there is nothing romantic going on between them. He thinks my jealousy is turning me callous and unempathetic to Nina and he even said he's disgusted to see my lack of kindness. Then he called ME materialistic when I never asked him for anything.
I'm not jealous of her, and I never thought there was anything romantic going on. I understand he wants to honor his promise to her but this is going above and beyond that. I understand Nina has mental health issues but other people have to struggle with that too, and they still have to get a job.
tl;dr - my bf thinks he has to honor his commitments and take care of the people he loves but I think paying for an adult woman's lifestyle goes above and beyond empathy,
submitted by ThrowRAfedupgf99 to AITAH [link] [comments]


http://swiebodzin.info