I think it says more about your reading comprehension than anything.

Justice not necessarily being a utopian ideal means "Justice" isn't necessary for a utopia. "The maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"(Merriam-Webster) isn't necessary in a utopia. In fact, it's counterintuitive. "Justice" doesn't care if you stole for fun or [perceived] necessity. "Justice" doesn't care if you killed someone for self-defense, anger, or a casual disregard for human life.

Justice and what you're envisioning are as different from each other as "social equality" is from "social equity".

But it was cool of you to take time to climb atop your high horse before misunderstanding.

Justice isn't necessarily a utopian ideal. Justice only cares about fairness/equality, not what is humane.

those are some top-tier grustle tips

Hell yeah, I made these errors myself. Homegrown.

I don't think they made the shirt...

I mean, they're not kissing. Nose-to-nose and building sexual tension, sure. But those lips ain't locked.

It's not like he cracked open a decaying tome to excavate "nattering doxy". "Heinous" never left.

I find it strange that David Schwimmer made a public plea for decency when it was about anti-semitism but not for any of the rest of the hateful shit projectile-blasted around that echo chamber.

I agree, but that whole situation is strange to me.

I am not assuming she made a plain offer.

i keep peanut M&Ms on me w the specific purpose of offering the guy one when i see him, and offering them again whenever i can tell he feels vulnerable.

I admit my inferences are predicated on the context that she is applying dog training but it is entirely core to the discussion. Her quote says not "some [M&Ms]", but "one". She's doling them a singlular M&M at specific instances. Again like trainers do when they're priming a reward for an animal after they perform the right action. And her self-defense is based on the idea that humans aren't that different from dogs and the boyfriend isn't aware of her actions, instead of anything normal like "he said he's glad I'm helping him" or "he's shown he's appreciative that I'm helping distract him from stress".

I'm getting the picture she's more doing "hey

<boyfriend>

It was luck but I'm still proud.

Wordle 1,406 3/6

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I feel like it's missing the setup of the dev complaining about why their architecture is a mess. Seems like a "management is ruining software" joke.

Yeah and, in my hypothetical, the person accepted the meals, so they must have consented to consuming the HGH too. You seem obstinate in refusing to see how intent shapes consent.

Imagine a person thinks it's in their partner's "best interest" to gain weight and only ever suggests the greasiest, most fattening foods and eateries. It is still incumbent on the partner to maintain their own fitness but the intention behind the person's offers taints the offer and ignores what the partner might wish.

You're assuming intent has to be something dry and contractual. "You had a bad day? I'll make you some cookies." You expressed your intent (assuming you aren't lying to them) and presented the offer: I'm making you cookies to help alleviate your bad day. Specifically in the OP, she recoils from the idea of telling the boyfriend what she's doing and chooses to hide the intent. I said as much in another comment, if she said as little as "I've noticed peanut M&Ms cheer you up when you're sad, you want some?" then she has obtained consent and has informed him what she's doing when she randomly hands him singular M&Ms. I'd wash my hands of this debate. Her reticience does not paint as rosy a picture as that.

Trying to whitewash the situation because "it doesn't seem to be negative" and "she's trying to help" doesn't negate that hiding things is a terrible precedent to set.

Yeah, that's perfect! You asked and he said okay. You treated him like an adult and an equal and are now actively helping him, instead of deciding for him how he should grow/change.

Even in your description of an "emotionally attentive" relationship, they have to be aware of what you're doing for them or else how will then tell you that you're wrong? Can it only ever be wrong if the person being acted for detects it, regardless of whether they dislike it?

Hypothetical: "You've been wanting to get stronger, so I've been secretly feeding you HGH. It's what you've wanted so I was doing what I thought best to help you."

All relationships require consent. Trying to reframe "getting consent and confirmation about your partner's wants and boundaries" as some sort of "anxious pestering" or needling is incredibly strange to me. As you get to know them, you don't have to check as often as you come to understand them but they should still be aware of what you're doing.

And do you realize what you're doing here is placing yourself as the standard to debate down at other positions, while presenting your anecdotes as relationship defaults?

To add on, seems like the 5k (USD) is a one-time lump sum. Your price quote from Germany is already 3k (EUR) after a year. It only ever outscales the 5k.

The biggest thing for me is that she's eroding his emotional sovereignty. She's taking covert actions to modulate and decide his mood for him.

Sometimes, when I'm feeling down, I just want to feel that and get through on my own. But she's deciding which of his moods isn't appropriate and is changing his behaviour. If this were out in the open, he would be able to accept or refuse her attempts to cheer him up or divert him. But he (presumably) doesn't even know it's happening. That's not cool.

It sounds fine because it's worded like she's helping him but she's still taking away his autonomy. Just bring it out in the open: "hey, I've noticed, when you're sad or stressed, peanut M&Ms cheer you up. Would you like me to keep some on-hand?" With that, you've alerted them to behaviours about themself and got their consent to "help" them.

If that's the timbre of their interactions, I've got no qualms. But setting the context as "I train abused dogs" brings the mental image to one step above "hiding medicine in a dog treat."

Be there for them and try to convince them to get professional therapy, maybe? And not Jedi mindtrick them using food out of whatever mood you don't like that they're in.

That's...effectively what they said. The added electronics make it infeasible for normal people to maintain their own vehicles. They never speculated on why the electronics were added.

The way you came at them makes it seem like they're provided a scapegoat when they didn't.

Edit: I regret stepping into an arena against a pedant with an axe to grind.

You are correct that I misread the original comment.