hikaru755

I mean... It might be. Just depends on how much potential there still is to get models up to higher reasoning capabilities, and I don't think anyone really knows that yet

This is like saying "yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they're not attracted to them. They're still gay! It's only a name!"

Well... That's correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it's like. Or because he's closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what's going on.

The amount of times I've been asked if I'm "one of those asexuals who have sex" is gross.

I agree that that's gross. But not because it implies that it's valid for asexuals to like sex. It's gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.

because it apparently includes everybody.

No. Only those who don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.

I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore

If the "not having sex" part is important to you, what's wrong with identifying as "sex-repulsed asexual" instead of just "asexual"? Sounds like that would already solve your problem

If you label a relationship as platonic, that usually serves to make it explicit that there's no romance or sex going on, yes.

When talking about attraction though, we're in the context of the split attraction model (look that up if you're interested), and there, platonic attraction is treated not as the opposite of sexual attraction, but as its own axis for basically saying "how much do I want this person to be my friend", without saying anything about how much you're sexually attracted to the person.

If you want to properly reconcile the terms, think about it like this - a sexual/romantic relationship is one where the sexual/romantic attraction between the partners is the strongest force, whereas a platonic relationship is one where their platonic attraction is the strongest force.

I personally actually have a hard time seeing platonic and romantic attraction as separate axes, for me, romantic attraction just feels like an extension, a stronger form of platonic attraction.

I can get behind that

Ohh the "what time is it in films" argument is good, haven't heard that one before, thanks

It's gonna get much worse when you start to try mapping days of the week onto the new times. Are days gonna be the same everywhere as well, to stay from 0 to 24? If so, have fun saying things like "Let's find a time on Wednesday/Thursday". People likely couldn't be bothered and would probably just use the day that their normal wake-up time falls on to mean the full solar day instead. At which point you could also just say okay, weekdays are still following local solar days. But now what weekday is it halfway around the world? Now you need to look up their solar day.

All this to say - abolishing time zones will introduce the reverse problem for every problem that it seemingly solves. You can't change the fact that our planet rotates and people in different locations will follow different schedules. Turning the lookup-table upside down is just a cosmetic change that doesn't remove the situation that's causing the confusion. I'd rather just stick with the set of problems that we're already used to dealing with.

No

Ah, yeah, for employment that's different, sure. That doesn't really seem to be a thing here in Germany (might even be illegal?), so didn't think of that

Perhaps that could make drug tests unconstitutional.

Heavily depends on the context, I'd say? Being drunk while driving should absolutely stay illegal, and having drug tests for that would be a necessity I guess

Drugs can be regulated by availability, not by illegality of ingestion

I generally don't disagree with you, but just want to point out that killing legal ways to get drugs usually doesn't stop people from getting them, instead it just makes the black market flourish and makes it harder to make sure you're getting clean stuff. When it comes to drugs, efforts need to be on education, prevention and rehabilitation, rather than criminalizing any part of the process

You're thinking of Edge, not Internet explorer

Well in your original comment you were just talking about "incest" generally, and then going on to mention you marrying your first cousin as a hypothetical example. That made it seem like you would want a child coming out of that relationship to be criminalized, and that's what I was responding to. For direct siblings it might indeed be another matter.