That demo struck me as a cherry-picked example. Can it work? Sure. Is it always that smooth? I highly highly doubt it.

So imagine a society dominated by men.

This society knows that sex is what leads to children. What it doesn’t know is how to verify if a child belongs to a particular man.

As this society is patriarchal in nature, it’s very important to the leaders/men that their lineage is protected. So they need a way to ensure that children’s bloodline can be properly guaranteed. The only way to control that is to make sure that women are bound to a specific man, and that sex with any other man is forbidden/disgusting. This is why bastard children and unwed mothers have historically been treated with such disdain. But men were often given a pass. The women were screwing up lineage tracking.

Tracking is less an issue these days, but the social conditioning is still there. We’ve forgotten why we prioritized it in the first place (right or wrong). Now it’s the way many people think because it’s been the way we’ve behaved for so long, much of society is geared around it being a basic truth.

I have a similar thing, but I got over it by committing to robbing every vendor of everything they have. Then there’s no one to buy the stupid fork.

deleted by creator

So could any restaurant chain. Are they not allowed to eat out? Or shop at stores? Or have a favorite sports team?

There’s a point where it becomes unreasonable to ask them to stay neutral and detached. Especially as they can always recuse themselves.

Edit:typo

Edit 2: there’s also a major difference between political decisions and any other matter that comes before the court. The Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing a number of government cases. That’s a primary responsibility. They need to be apolitical in order to handle that aspect of their work–or they would need to recuse themselves constantly.

But they are still people. They can still have preferences. They can still do good in the world beyond their jobs.

Recusing from the rare overlap of a particular cause is reasonable. Recusing for political bias is not.

Apolitical fundraising is fine.

Edit 3: I’d appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don’t like a different point of view

Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?

There’s a lot of apolitical fundraising.

This isn’t wrong, but it’s misleading. A huge portion of that statement is based on newborns dying. There were also early advances in medicine that helped by the time around the birth of America. (Which is where this judge serves/gained a lifetime appointment.)

In 1850 (in Wales, which is a good representation of a Western civilization), 20 year olds could expect to live into their 60s. And 50 year olds into their 70s. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

While the 90+ crowd is an exception, that’s true even in our time. But living into your 70s was not unusual when the laws were written.

Yeah, but to be fair, that defeats the point OP is making by stating their sex frequency. If it’s all relative, then his activity is irrelevant when discussing someone else’s.

Excellent point. My apologies.

I dunno. We can manipulate entangled electrons to look like a yin yang symbol and that’s not cool?

Edit; photons. My bad.

I think it’s, “but my god is the journal itself atrocious”