Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.
It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don’t swear or talk dirty, etc.
I agree with schools teaching kids “about” religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.
Most drugs should be over-the-counter. The especially dangerous or addictive ones maybe just require counselling with a pharmacist first. But I’m more concerned about people not able to access the medication they need than I am about idiots removing themselves from the gene pool by OD.
People in my dumbass country would rather 10 people with a genuine medical need suffer as long as 1 addict can’t get a fix, and it’s so many layers of bullshit.
If you think otc drugs are expensive now, waitl the scheduled narcotics find their way into the open market
there’s not really a way to know for sure but I imagine the price would actually come down somewhat due to removal of red tape and paperwork associated with drug control
possibly also from increased competition if that made it easier for a drug manufacturer to begin producing previously controlled drugs
for example amphetamine salt production is capped by the US DEA. if that cap were removed the supply would increase and the price might very well decrease
sadly this is largely useless speculation
Personally i hope it stays that way. There are enough legal ways to lose ones mind and life
Children should not be exposed to advertising at a young age (below 11/12 years old)
Just say 11 months damn
that wouldnt account for leap days tho :/
How about: (334/365 … 335/366) years
More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:
If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn’t until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn’t a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn’t know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.
I would have had a much happier early life if I’d gotten internet earlier. Wouldn’t have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.
Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.
true. but next time, just buy/make less food.
Why?
because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:
- it is expensive
- it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
- if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it
is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?
- Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
- Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
- Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
- every bit counts. otherwise i might as well throw away money on everything since rent is so high. if you decide that your spending is negligible (or would be spent regardless), then we can agree to disagree; obv what u spend ur money on is up to u, but i am entitled to my opinion on it.
- you might be right about that tbh, although i would like a source.
- you are right that it doesnt actively take food away from hungry people. i meant to say that you can improve the situation by giving away leftovers (assuming they are still in reasonable condition).
as a side note, i think the way most people are introduced to the argument is by their parents when they are young. the parents are simply trying to get their children in the habit of considering others’ needs, while also saving their own money. especially since most of the time the kid actually is hungry, but just doesnt want to eat vegetables or whatever. if someone (irl) is arguing the starving people card to you as an adult when u are wasting food, then that is less reasonable: though they have good intentions, i agree it is not all that impactful on those hungry. but again, every bit counts.
If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.
My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.
more relatable than I wish it was.
Especially if that’s food that’s going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.
I don’t know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they’re just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they’re talking about. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally going “and you are?” when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it’s just some terminally online teenager.
Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community. You don’t get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we “have to support” and it keeps fucking us over. No, I’m not supporting this business just because it’s black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).
I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community.
Nah deadass. Black capitalists have done nothing but mislead ever since Sean Carter put a sixth zero next to his net worth; and that goes the same for Sean Combs(who is in SO much legal hot water I expect him to boil by the end of the month), for Beyoncé, for Rihanna, for Michael Render, all of 'em. Black capitalism is just minstrelry and misleadership; and Black Excellence™ is just Talented Tenth-assed classism with a fresh coat of paint.
Here’s one I get a lot of flack for that I don’t bring up much
I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that’s almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.
Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.
AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that’s more about tradition.
Yes, I’m aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.
Problem is that most of your anti-gun folk aren’t crazy, or don’t want to appear as such, and so they placate the defenders of gun rights with phrases resembling “I believe we should be able to have handguns because self defense buuuuuut nobody should have semi auto rifles.” Of course, the second they do ban long guns (curbing a total of 500/60,000 gun deaths a year mind you), they’ll switch to “oh well clearly that didn’t work so now we’re taking the handguns too.” It’s literally by design, simply a tactic to fool those who won’t bother looking into that whole “only 500 killed with long guns/yr” stat, nor the fact that 5.56 only delivers about as much energy as a hot .357mag rnd, but the Barrett .50BMG which is bolt action and therefore totally fine delivers about 10,000 more ft-lbs of energy, etc.
Besides that, the 2a protects things “in common use” according to Heller and “must have a historical precedent for bans,” according to Bruen therefore handguns do fall quite under the scope of the 2a and a ban would be ruled unconstitutional immediately.
Besides that, self defense is important, and unless you suggest people start open carrying ARs, the best way to do it is to CCW a compact 9mm handgun.
Furthermore “guns shouldn’t be for the poor” would help to curb crime, but at what cost? That is pure T bona-fide classism and I don’t support it, personally.
This guy never saw John Wick.
deleted by creator
@TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.
You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.
until what age ?
Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat
16 at least I’d say. I didn’t get my first smartphone til I was that old and it still nearly fried my brain having unfettered access to a screen.
I guess till they become and adult because they are in charge of their decisions at that point.
so they cant use a phone even at 15-17 ? a lot of kids have jobs at that point.
Flip phone or non internet phone. We have a phone for the kids, but its not one that can get them to the internet or sending pictures.
unfortunately they will almost certainly get picked on. i dont think abstinence is the best idea here, better to educate them on the dangers and monitor/restrict what they are using the phone for. lest they hate you. but certainly for someone under 12-14 they do not need a phone.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont want my kids to fit in with those kids, and thus we have them in private schools now. One main issue is even if you teach them not to just start watching porn, they turn into one of those kids that is on their phone all the time and then transitions into an adult like that too.
you realize most kids will still find a way, even if you tell them not to ? its better to actually educate them. which is the point of parenting; not just to restrict what they are allowed to do.
[Country] isn’t real, it was made up by [its founders] to [dodge taxes / dominate neighboring city-states / measure dicks with [Other Country]]
heh, just replace [Country] with [The Country I dont like] and you’ve got yourself a deal
Oh, definitely not. This format is explicitly for pissing off nationalists.
Simply dismiss the validity of the governing body they worship by reference to the historical contingency of its creation, then sit back and watch as they work themselves into a froth trying to justify their imagined superiority without reference to their mythic founders.
Beeing honest about mistakes you make is way better than trying to deflect or lie about them. This is true in professional and in social settings.
Own up to your mistakes, try to correct them and be open about you fucking up. Most people will respect that more than you trying to be Mr or Ms Perfect.
How is this a hot take
While I personally agree with most of what you said, I disagree with your assertion as to the reaction you’ll get from peers.
We’ve made admitting mistakes worse than the mistake itself these days, and it’s slowly unraveling accountability.
Why do I just see your name as Gloomy without the @servername?
Y’all’re on the same instance is why.
Thanks, I guess I don’t see many from mander out on /all lol
Edit: love the use of y’all’re lmao
Lmao it’s one of my favorite words. Yeah I don’t see many of y’all either lol, I’m guessing it’s a smaller instance which is cool.
You also may be able to change it in your settings to always display the full name btw, if you wanted. In Eternity you can for sure and I’m sure others too.
Because you’re on the same instance, I suppose
The Fedverse works in mysterious ways 🤷
Tears of the Kingdom is a terrible game, it’s a mod of BOTW but with more ways to skip the exploration so you don’t get to memorize the map like in Elden Ring or Fallout.
It’s definitely a glorified DLC that was stretched into a whole game. The new things are mostly good but 80% is just exactly the same.
I’m not sure I exactly agree. I feel like it would be a better game than botw if I hadn’t already played botw. Still suffered from most of the same problems.
Also the combat is so bad it encouraged you to avoid it whenever possible.
I wouldn’t say terrible but mid possibly. It just took something that already worked well and added a little extra to it.
If “thing2: the sequel” attaches a something kinda neato to the revolutionary, gaming landscape changing “thing1:the thingining” that doesn’t mean thing2 is really better than something that significantly moved the bar.
This is why Fallout 3 is better than Fallout New Vegas and I will fight you all over it.
Fallout New Vegas has better writing than 3
In what world does “I gotta find my deadbeat dad” beat out New Vegas? Link me up with your plug; I want whatever you’re smokin on
Fediverse is not for everyone and I’d rather not have fediverse go mainstream, and if it does I’d rather have normies use normie instances like lemmy.world and mastodon.social because that way you can filter them out if you don’t like them.
Using windows os should be marked as crimes against humanity.
If someone’s too dangerous to own a gun they should be institutionalized until they’re no longer a danger. Just taking guns away from them won’t prevent them from being a problem.
Define “too dangerous to own a gun”
Anything that would currently mean a person loses their right to gun ownership. A felony, red flag, whatever. I’m not sure I agree with all of them but the logic of the situation dictates that if a person is so dangerous that they will kill people then that needs to be corrected. Just taking a gun away won’t prevent them from doing harm if they want to.
It’s hard to argue that guns don’t make the proverbial bad guy more efficient at killing. If guns weren’t the most effective tool for killing someone, cops would carry cheaper alternatives like billy clubs, and wars would still be fought with swords and bows.
Of course, they do carry billy clubs and blunt instruments are quite capable of killing people too. Sure mass shootings would be harder (assuming we could do one single thing about the six hundred million guns out there already, which, good luck) but single brutal murders w/o guns are also a problem and typically target women, lgbt, and disabled people.
And homeless people
Yes thank you I forgot to include them, but that’s true.
That’s not the point.
Like porn, I know it when I see it.
Tough to legislate, no?
Not really, the tough part is finding people I’d trust to write, enforce, and interpret the legislation.
