Kind of pathetic how we still have to solve the issue of cutting up baby dicks as ritual.
Egypt's worse; they still cut off the clits of preteen girls as ritual.
Jews and Egyptians aren't even trying to hide it. They do it specifically to reduce the sensitivity of sexual organs.
Christians are the useful idiots (as always) who have been duped into thinking it's for 'medical' or 'aesthetic' purposes. In all honesty, Christians cut up the dicks of their kids because the dad's dick was cut up for him and he doesn't want to admit there's something wrong with it.
Christians don't do it. Americans do it. And they did it for the same explicit reason as the others thanks to the psycho weirdo Kellogg of the cereal fame to try to prevent masturbation, and sexual pleasure.
Maybe in some cultures, but that’s not the norm. It was always just the doctor and his assistant. Honestly, it’s distressing to observe, so no parents or anyone else were allowed to be in the room. *I was a medical assistant for a gyno who did circumcisions during mom’s postpartum check up.
Lobbying; at least in its current form. Corporations being treated as people when it benefits them, but not when it would hurt them. Executives not being held legally accountable for the harm they inflict. SJC-Legalized bribery (as “speech”). HOAs. The Bail system. Legislatures redistricting themselves. Racial profiling. ICE. For-Profit prisons. For-Profit Healthcare. Destroying our ecosystem for profit.
Is this not murder? There's no way he didn't contribute to her death even if she was already terminally ill. Stabbing a terminally ill person is murder, putting a newborn baby on the street under the guise of "it's in my property and it's not my kid" is murder, why isn't this? At least criminal negligence no?
Also, is Nanimo doing okay? Like, just in general, but is the housing situation as bad as Vancouver?
Tell you what, you provide me a non-AI painting remaking of the "O brother what art thou" film post
with the characters replaces with Luigi Mangionne and the word brother changed to Luigi.
And I will put it in my post.
Have you never seen a meme? You don't have to bust out the oil paints, in the amount of time you've already spent defending this slop you could have clumsily pasted his cutout head onto all six positions. The rough quality can be part of the humor.
I bet your chatbot can explain this and other aspects of human behavior.
The funny thing is, I could copy the AI's work, but I couldn't create it from scratch because I wouldn't know what it should look like without looking at it, so it would still be using AI anyway.
yeah, looks like I"m going to have to lie to everyone about using AI int he future because you people are becoming insufferable
I just want to make it clear that I'm not going to feel bad about it, lying to your face about it and I'm going to have a lot of fun doing it.
Good job smartypants
Companies reporting price increases as "adjusting for inflation" when the price hike does not match inflation should have the entire C-suite going to the gulag. We need to unironically do what China does with its rich, terrorize them and make them walk on eggshells and hand out ridiculously harsh punishments to management when a business commits a crime.
Also, campaign promises made by politicians running for office should be legally binding. If something they said would happen did not happen, they should be tried for treason and the burden should be on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they tried everything they possibly could to keep the promise but forces they could not possibly overcome prevented them from succeeding. Maybe then they'll only promise things they actually intend to do.
Haha. Yep. I was going for subtle. :)
I think ads that didn't mislead wouldn't be so bad. I do want to know about interesting new products... I just want to be able to trust the info. And choose when I see them.
I believe, though I could be wrong, that for a person to be penalized for fraud, someone has to have suffer damages.
I think it should be illegal to simply mislead for financial gain. Think ads that intentionally exaggerate thier products, influencers who will claim to love some product and use it all the time, when they have never even tried it. And media that puts such a heavy spin on things that in court they claim that no reasonable person would have believed what they are saying as a defense.
Fixed prices for fines. These should be based on a fixed percentage, not fixed dollar amount, of a persons overall wealth. None of this bullshit that can bankrupt a poor person but be the price of admission for the rich.
Historically, fee-based "laws" are specifically designed to punish the poor. You off to update the whole system, or just the last few thousand years or so?
Willful violations of the Constitution. Right now, elected officials can brazenly disregard the Constitution and the worst that happens is they are told not to do that again in the future, pretty please.
Intentionally and knowingly calling a MTF trans person a man is transphobia. Dunno about jail, but I'd be down to have legally enforced punishment for that. To be fair, that should probably cover all cases of (intentionally and knowingly) misgendering people, in a similar fashion to defamation.
I would prefer a mixed system. All wealth over 1000x the median household income taxed at 100%. So no one should have a fortune larger than that, a number that would be approximately $80 million today. But if you secretly gather a fortune much larger than that? If you somehow secretly amass a fortune 10,000x the median household income? At that point I would apply severe criminal penalties, like a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence. I don't want to throw the book at someone just because they accidentally let their fortune grow a bit beyond the limit. But if you're a whole order of magnitude above it? Then that's when severe criminal penalties should apply. At some point your wealth becomes so large that you personally become a threat to national security. Amassing a fortune in the billions should be treated like a private citizen trying to build their own nuclear bomb. No one should have that much power, and we should treat both the same.
I like the 1000x threshold because that is approximately the maximum possible fortune one can amass in one's lifetime off of ordinary salary work and extreme frugality.
1000x the median income would be about $80 million. Consider the highest-earning non-executive salaried employees - people who spend years in school in very challenging fields. People like neurosurgeons. Imagine if there was a couple composed of two neurosurgeons, and they earn very good salaries. They're also so frugal that they spend basically nothing. You have a pair of neurosurgeons literally sleeping on the sidewalk out front of the hospital. They live like that, and they invest and save every penny they can. The highest salaried incomes combined with pathological frugality.
Even if they did all of that. Even if two highly educated workers lived off nothing and saved everything, even then those people would still struggle to earn, over their whole life, a fortune that exceeded 1000x the median household income.
Such a system allows for a capitalism that actually does live up to the marketing. You're allowed to earn a fortune as large as your own labor and skills will allow. However, the only way to obtain a fortune larger than this is to get into the business of labor arbitrage - hiring other people and harnessing the surplus of their labor. I want people to be able to earn as much money from the sweat of their own brow as they can. But I don't want people to be able to hoard strategically dangerous fortunes by exploiting the labor of others. And 1000x the median household income is a nice even number that's easy to explain to people and that achieves this goal.
As ex smoker who tried to quit so many times during almost two decades - I know how tough this drug can be and that it's wide acceptance as social norm makes it so much worse.
What percentage of people smoke cigarettes compared to the percentage that do cocaine? Perhaps prohibition would dramatically reduce the number of users, even if that number is guaranteed to never reach 0?
Different drugs, which is why considerably more people smoked marijuana while it was illegal than did cocaine.
And also, at what cost? Look at how many lives are ruined because of the war on drugs. Look at how many resources are wasted enforcing it.
Tobacco usage is already a fraction of what it was decades ago.
And everything he's saying about tobacco can be applied to, you guessed it, alcohol! So we should make booze illegal again? Because that worked out so well the first time?
(to play devil's advocate, I also think that alcohol has a much greater case for being outlawed than tobacco for the collective harm it does to society)
Private financing of political campaigns, lobbying, billionaire tax evasion, corporate personhood, corporate tax evasion, wealth over 100 million, private equity in housing or healthcare, employment dependent health insurance, misinformation presented as news, not enforcing laws on the wealthy, corporate subsidies, big farm subsidies(small community farms only), gerrymandering, for profit prisons and felons running for office.
Yes! The amount of people who feel entitled to blast noise is too damn high! I was gonna comment on playing noise n speakers in public settings, but I'll happily pile on here.
The people using speaker on transit, or blasting external speakers while hiking through otherwise perfectly good woods… are disturbing the peace, sure. So are the college kids two floors up when they’re pre-gaming at 9pm. But the police would not take any of these calls seriously, unless the OP rule/law were in place.
I’ll defend people playing music through speakers in the woods…. It’s the fucking woods. It’s away from civilization. You’ll be away from them shortly. It’s fiiiiine. It’s not like you’re captive on public transportation.
Boo. That shit carries so far. I go to the woods to get away from human bullshit. I'd much prefer the wind through the land with a birdsong accompaniment.
All you have to do is make it illegal to expose or proselytize religion to anyone under 22, and religion would likely die out within 2-3 generations.
When you have been raised as a rationalist and know, at a fundamental level, the bullshit detection system called the Scientific Method, you need to have some pretty powerful mental illness in play to willingly grasp at religion.
Brainwashing gets increasingly easy the younger the subject is. Children, in particular, have an evolutionary need to automatically trust adults and what adults tell them, as they don’t yet have the cognitive tools to handle the world around them. Trusting adults have been baked into that part of childhood development because, historically speaking, it gave a distinct evolutionary advantage. Those children that listened to adults had a much stronger probability of surviving until adulthood.
It’s why religions so strongly proselytize the young -- get them young, get them for life.
The Socratic Method tends to be effective in many cases so long as the other person remains open to reason and logic, especially the requirement for evidence.
And just like that, Microsoft goes straight to jail LMAO.
But oh yeah, I've seen those. Those would also be included under this law! We can have both! Lol
Seriously though, I'm talking specifically when any little thing that stops someone from doing what they're doing and it'll usually say "Hey, this is why it's not working. Please tell someone this message."
A lot of very important things have already been suggested and I agree with most. I won't just re-state what others have said, instead I'll suggest a pet peeve of mine.
People who say "I love that for you". It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, it's always said in such a condescending and disingenuous way by every person I've ever heard say it, I just can't stand hearing it now.
Alcohol and gambling. The death and suffering these cause is unfathomable. Just within my small social sphere I've encountered numerous people that have had their entire families ripped apart or destroyed by these, particularly alcohol.
Not to diminish the harms of alcohol, but the USA tried that once and it went pretty badly. Prohibition of other drugs has also led to considerable harm. The cure may be worse than the disease here.
It created a massive black market which greatly increased the profitability of organized crime. That lead to a substantial increase in policing, often conducted with little regard for civil rights.
Not to mention the dangers of bootlegging when you don't know what you're doing. Methanol is suuuper toxic, and there were many people accidentally poisoned while making their own alcohols during prohibition. Shoot, just look at how dangerous it is to buy street drugs now with fentanyl everywhere these days. Ideally there should be regulation to protect consumers. Random drug dealers as well as corporations have proven themselves untrustworthy, and most drugs/alcohol have some medicinal/spiritual/sociocultural applications, so outright illegalization results in a net negative.
there's more than one way for what i described: regulate tobacco like weed or regulate weed like tobacco, and having it ssomewhere in between of your choice
Fun fact: The Native Americans had no concept of land ownership. It's how "Squatter's Rights" was used to justify European occupation of native lands.
To the natives, land was meant to be used, not owned. For Europeans, they would look at a section of land and say "Who owns this? Nobody? Well, I guess it's mine now."
Being raised in a world dominated by European ideals, it's easy to disregard how those ideals may have been challenged and if we really received the best outcome.
I was asked to feed an outdoor cat in my neighborhood. I did. Several small animals have likely died because I helped one feel more comfortable. Do I need to go to prison.
I exist in USA where habitat is constantly destroyed for profit. There is no way for me to not be a part of this system. Should I be executed?
I fixed some damage to my home where there were carpenter ants digging in the wood. Not only did several likely die, but I also ruined their home. Shackle me to a trailer hitch.
I should have been more specific. The point isn't about what predators do in the wild, or about accidental, unavoidable deaths. It's about the violence that is intentional, done on a massive scale, and most importantly, completely unnecessary.
It all boils down to choice. A lion in the wild isn't having a moral debate about its next meal; it's just surviving. We, on the other hand, have tons of other options.
Nobody's talking about punishing someone for accidentally stepping on a bug. It's about questioning the entire systems that treat living, feeling beings like they're just products for our pleasure or convenience, when it's totally avoidable.
If you are going through a place with a drive through that wraps around the building and you pull up far enough to block the exit so that it fucks up the works and an employee has to come out and direct traffic to unfuck it you should have your license revoked. Clearly you don't have the situational awareness to be operating a motor vehicle.
I disagree, but i would be happier with better conditions. I still think murder is wrong, and I oppose it, but if you remove the torture aspect I admit you're doing dramatically less harm.
If you murder me by shooting me in the back of the head while I'm not looking, that's not torture.
Obviously I still don't want you to kill me, but... It's still not torture, it's a different thing, and we have different words for that... it's murder, or killing, or slaughter.
Please keep in mind I'm not making a moral or ethical judgement, but a definitional one. Torture is a different thing.
If, as you say
there's no way to avoid torturing an animal while taking their life when they don't want to die.
How are you defining torture?
Did I torture my dearly beloved pets when they had cancer or infections bad enough that I had to have them put down? No! What an odd and cruel thing that would be for me to say!
But they still didn't want to die, and I didn't want them to either. That's not torture.
Note: I suggest you don't look up "(type of animal) arrested," because most of what pops up is horrible people arrested for doing terrible things to animals. (Although a couple cats have been "arrested" in modern times.) I just happened to remember the pig trials of yore.
Absolutely. And I further submit that if we're to think of ourselves as an intelligent, enlightened, civilized, and technological species, moving beyond our predatory instinct is one of the first prerequisites. Only once we completely stop exploiting animals can we in good faith say we're actually materially better than any other animal species. Until then we're just lions with computers.
What's the first thing we claim sets us apart from every other animal? Oh right, how humans aren't beholden to natural instincts and have advanced beyond mindless killing machines. We say while buying another hamburger because we can't even get past the primal urge to keep eating animal meat as soon as we taste it because that urge literally evolved in a time where the only choices were to hunt or starve. With all our technology you'd think we'd embrace more efficient ways of nutrient delivery.
You're right, and furthering the cause against exploitation of humans will help those values to be applied to animals as well. Both are exploitation and come from similar motives and perceived hierarchy. I'd say that a society that has completely ended exploitation of humans will most likely be one that has also ended exploitation of animals because the values that drive the former will also drive the latter. There are very few cases where it's human lives OR animal lives.
Posting on TikTok. TikTok is an evil mind-virus control app. Posting on it, like other closed source apps, fuels surveillance capitalism and ccp communism.
elected officials stock trading
Circumcising a child.
Kind of pathetic how we still have to solve the issue of cutting up baby dicks as ritual.
Egypt's worse; they still cut off the clits of preteen girls as ritual.
Jews and Egyptians aren't even trying to hide it. They do it specifically to reduce the sensitivity of sexual organs.
Christians are the useful idiots (as always) who have been duped into thinking it's for 'medical' or 'aesthetic' purposes. In all honesty, Christians cut up the dicks of their kids because the dad's dick was cut up for him and he doesn't want to admit there's something wrong with it.
Christians don't do it. Americans do it. And they did it for the same explicit reason as the others thanks to the psycho weirdo Kellogg of the cereal fame to try to prevent masturbation, and sexual pleasure.
You're gonna love learning about a certain priestly duty at said events. Clue: it involves the priest's mouth. 🤢
Oh, I'm sorry, downvoters. I misspoke. It's "rabbi", not "priest". Oops.
Maybe in some cultures, but that’s not the norm. It was always just the doctor and his assistant. Honestly, it’s distressing to observe, so no parents or anyone else were allowed to be in the room. *I was a medical assistant for a gyno who did circumcisions during mom’s postpartum check up.
Oofda.
And sometimes the priest gives the child herpes when performing the Briss
Lobbying; at least in its current form. Corporations being treated as people when it benefits them, but not when it would hurt them. Executives not being held legally accountable for the harm they inflict. SJC-Legalized bribery (as “speech”). HOAs. The Bail system. Legislatures redistricting themselves. Racial profiling. ICE. For-Profit prisons. For-Profit Healthcare. Destroying our ecosystem for profit.
Being cruel to other people by hiding behind some power imbalance.
I don't want to live in a society where the consequence for this behavior is a meaningless fine.
Is this not murder? There's no way he didn't contribute to her death even if she was already terminally ill. Stabbing a terminally ill person is murder, putting a newborn baby on the street under the guise of "it's in my property and it's not my kid" is murder, why isn't this? At least criminal negligence no?
Also, is Nanimo doing okay? Like, just in general, but is the housing situation as bad as Vancouver?
Say no to AI slop
shush synthophobe
Tell you what, you provide me a non-AI painting remaking of the "O brother what art thou" film post
with the characters replaces with Luigi Mangionne and the word brother changed to Luigi.
And I will put it in my post.
Just don't dump AI spam everywhere 🤷♂️
How about you keep your sentiments to yourself
Have you never seen a meme? You don't have to bust out the oil paints, in the amount of time you've already spent defending this slop you could have clumsily pasted his cutout head onto all six positions. The rough quality can be part of the humor.
I bet your chatbot can explain this and other aspects of human behavior.
result https://lemmy.ml/post/34374123/20369162 and I asked the computer
about normal human behaviour
https://chatgpt.com/share/6898fd57-7618-8005-9724-ad3d650441fc
The funny thing is, I could copy the AI's work, but I couldn't create it from scratch because I wouldn't know what it should look like without looking at it, so it would still be using AI anyway.
Learn to draw.
Use MS paint.
This took about 100 times longer
Beep boop beep boop
yeah, looks like I"m going to have to lie to everyone about using AI int he future because you people are becoming insufferable
I just want to make it clear that I'm not going to feel bad about it, lying to your face about it and I'm going to have a lot of fun doing it.
Good job smartypants
Lying about it just makes you a coward.
And it's not like it's gonna change anything, people will still notice?
It's not AI, I drew it by hand
You're going to have a lot of fun generating pictures with AI and then telling people you didn't?
That's sad and weird dude, please go outside, you have been online too long and forgotten that there are real things out there.
yes,no,don't care, fuck grass
Companies reporting price increases as "adjusting for inflation" when the price hike does not match inflation should have the entire C-suite going to the gulag. We need to unironically do what China does with its rich, terrorize them and make them walk on eggshells and hand out ridiculously harsh punishments to management when a business commits a crime.
Also, campaign promises made by politicians running for office should be legally binding. If something they said would happen did not happen, they should be tried for treason and the burden should be on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they tried everything they possibly could to keep the promise but forces they could not possibly overcome prevented them from succeeding. Maybe then they'll only promise things they actually intend to do.
Attempting to mislead a person for financial gain.
So basically all ads... I agree
Don't forget car dealerships!
Haha. Yep. I was going for subtle. :) I think ads that didn't mislead wouldn't be so bad. I do want to know about interesting new products... I just want to be able to trust the info. And choose when I see them.
Yeah, the choosing when to see them is the most difficult part. I don't see that happening in the near future.
That's already illegal? It used to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obtaining_pecuniary_advantage_by_deception and is now just fraud.
I believe, though I could be wrong, that for a person to be penalized for fraud, someone has to have suffer damages.
I think it should be illegal to simply mislead for financial gain. Think ads that intentionally exaggerate thier products, influencers who will claim to love some product and use it all the time, when they have never even tried it. And media that puts such a heavy spin on things that in court they claim that no reasonable person would have believed what they are saying as a defense.
Yeah they should make fraud illegal
Fraud, I believe, has a narrower definition than most of us think.
Fixed prices for fines. These should be based on a fixed percentage, not fixed dollar amount, of a persons overall wealth. None of this bullshit that can bankrupt a poor person but be the price of admission for the rich.
Historically, fee-based "laws" are specifically designed to punish the poor. You off to update the whole system, or just the last few thousand years or so?
Willful violations of the Constitution. Right now, elected officials can brazenly disregard the Constitution and the worst that happens is they are told not to do that again in the future, pretty please.
"ask me later" on phone apps. No means no!
If there's also a "no" option it's fine, sometimes I even want the "ask me later"
Transphobia
Anti LGBTQ+ bigotry in general.
This kind of bigotry has led to suicides of LGBTQ+ people and terrorist attacks against their communities. This is beyond "offending" someone.
Is calling a MTF transperson a man considered 'transphobia' in your mind?
Do you honestly believe people should be imprisoned for it?
Intentionally and knowingly calling a MTF trans person a man is transphobia. Dunno about jail, but I'd be down to have legally enforced punishment for that. To be fair, that should probably cover all cases of (intentionally and knowingly) misgendering people, in a similar fashion to defamation.
Dang. Thanks for being honest, but I vehemently disagree with you.
People should be allowed to call others what they want. It's up to us to be mature enough to handle people calling us things we don't like.
You should know that advocating for legal repercussions here drives people away from the cause.
Edit: It's sad how many of you want to control others' speech like this, but I guess it just goes to show that we're not really on the same side.
If a politician is running a platform of pushing legal penalties for calling people things they don't like, I will make sure to vote against them.
They are allowed to be scared of trans people, no projecting it though.
You said it was better than I did, thanks!
People have irrational fears all the time, no reason needed.
Having wealth over 1000 times the median family income.
I'd prefer it was simply prevented via policy rather than punished if breached.
I would prefer a mixed system. All wealth over 1000x the median household income taxed at 100%. So no one should have a fortune larger than that, a number that would be approximately $80 million today. But if you secretly gather a fortune much larger than that? If you somehow secretly amass a fortune 10,000x the median household income? At that point I would apply severe criminal penalties, like a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence. I don't want to throw the book at someone just because they accidentally let their fortune grow a bit beyond the limit. But if you're a whole order of magnitude above it? Then that's when severe criminal penalties should apply. At some point your wealth becomes so large that you personally become a threat to national security. Amassing a fortune in the billions should be treated like a private citizen trying to build their own nuclear bomb. No one should have that much power, and we should treat both the same.
Scale that back to 100x tops
I like the 1000x threshold because that is approximately the maximum possible fortune one can amass in one's lifetime off of ordinary salary work and extreme frugality.
1000x the median income would be about $80 million. Consider the highest-earning non-executive salaried employees - people who spend years in school in very challenging fields. People like neurosurgeons. Imagine if there was a couple composed of two neurosurgeons, and they earn very good salaries. They're also so frugal that they spend basically nothing. You have a pair of neurosurgeons literally sleeping on the sidewalk out front of the hospital. They live like that, and they invest and save every penny they can. The highest salaried incomes combined with pathological frugality.
Even if they did all of that. Even if two highly educated workers lived off nothing and saved everything, even then those people would still struggle to earn, over their whole life, a fortune that exceeded 1000x the median household income.
Such a system allows for a capitalism that actually does live up to the marketing. You're allowed to earn a fortune as large as your own labor and skills will allow. However, the only way to obtain a fortune larger than this is to get into the business of labor arbitrage - hiring other people and harnessing the surplus of their labor. I want people to be able to earn as much money from the sweat of their own brow as they can. But I don't want people to be able to hoard strategically dangerous fortunes by exploiting the labor of others. And 1000x the median household income is a nice even number that's easy to explain to people and that achieves this goal.
Anytbing that annoys me personally.
Production of cigarettes and tobacco.
As ex smoker who tried to quit so many times during almost two decades - I know how tough this drug can be and that it's wide acceptance as social norm makes it so much worse.
Because the war on drugs is working out great...
What percentage of people smoke cigarettes compared to the percentage that do cocaine? Perhaps prohibition would dramatically reduce the number of users, even if that number is guaranteed to never reach 0?
Different drugs, which is why considerably more people smoked marijuana while it was illegal than did cocaine.
And also, at what cost? Look at how many lives are ruined because of the war on drugs. Look at how many resources are wasted enforcing it.
Tobacco usage is already a fraction of what it was decades ago.
And everything he's saying about tobacco can be applied to, you guessed it, alcohol! So we should make booze illegal again? Because that worked out so well the first time?
(to play devil's advocate, I also think that alcohol has a much greater case for being outlawed than tobacco for the collective harm it does to society)
Maybe you shouldn't be chomping at the bit to kidnap people and lock them in cages.
Capitalism
Private financing of political campaigns, lobbying, billionaire tax evasion, corporate personhood, corporate tax evasion, wealth over 100 million, private equity in housing or healthcare, employment dependent health insurance, misinformation presented as news, not enforcing laws on the wealthy, corporate subsidies, big farm subsidies(small community farms only), gerrymandering, for profit prisons and felons running for office.
I mean, that one's easier said than done. There's been laws like that, but somebody has to decide what's misinformation, and they usually abuse it.
earning more than 360,000 usd per year.
And how will Californians and New Yorkers be able to afford a new home next year?
Housing costs will go down when demand drops due to enough people being imprisoned
That sounds reasonable.
Leaving a shopping cart in a parking space instead of bringing it back to the cart shelter.
Cart narcs out ✊
Advertising.
Puttering along in the left lane, at or below the speed limit. The left lane is for passing.
The left lane is for crime.
So? Stay in your lane. Everyone's great.
The left lane is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only.
No, the left lane is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED lane.
The left lane has ALWAYS been for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only!
Don't you tell me which lane is for loading, and which lane is for stopping!
There's just no stopping in the left lane
Listen, Betty, don't start up with your left lane shit again.
Oh, really, Vernon? Why pretend? We both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
According to the highway code, the left lane is the one you should stay in, the right lane is the fast lane, or for overtaking.
Advertising, political parties and religions. All of them.
Political parties?
Did I misspell all of them?
How will your country be ruled without political parties?
ask the founding fathers, they didn't want them either
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Noise making that disrupts other people's tranquility.
Yes! The amount of people who feel entitled to blast noise is too damn high! I was gonna comment on playing noise n speakers in public settings, but I'll happily pile on here.
Leaf blowers and my neighbor's power washer that emits a high pitched tone like a mosquito ringtone the whole time he runs it. It pierces my brain.
Disturbing the peace isn't illegal?
The people using speaker on transit, or blasting external speakers while hiking through otherwise perfectly good woods… are disturbing the peace, sure. So are the college kids two floors up when they’re pre-gaming at 9pm. But the police would not take any of these calls seriously, unless the OP rule/law were in place.
I’ll defend people playing music through speakers in the woods…. It’s the fucking woods. It’s away from civilization. You’ll be away from them shortly. It’s fiiiiine. It’s not like you’re captive on public transportation.
Boo. That shit carries so far. I go to the woods to get away from human bullshit. I'd much prefer the wind through the land with a birdsong accompaniment.
Political lobbying and lifetime politicians.
Neighbors with dogs that bark all the time.
Not raising your children.
Generally think mandatory minimums are unjust, but political corruption. It's wrong per se but also has downstream negative effects on society.
Lying as a politician.
Religion
All you have to do is make it illegal to expose or proselytize religion to anyone under 22, and religion would likely die out within 2-3 generations.
When you have been raised as a rationalist and know, at a fundamental level, the bullshit detection system called the Scientific Method, you need to have some pretty powerful mental illness in play to willingly grasp at religion.
Agreed. And yet there are plenty of Gen Z and Gen Alpha religous zealots.
Brainwashing gets increasingly easy the younger the subject is. Children, in particular, have an evolutionary need to automatically trust adults and what adults tell them, as they don’t yet have the cognitive tools to handle the world around them. Trusting adults have been baked into that part of childhood development because, historically speaking, it gave a distinct evolutionary advantage. Those children that listened to adults had a much stronger probability of surviving until adulthood.
It’s why religions so strongly proselytize the young -- get them young, get them for life.
I wonder what the most effective way to de-radicalize these individuals is.
The Socratic Method tends to be effective in many cases so long as the other person remains open to reason and logic, especially the requirement for evidence.
How does that contradict what OP said? Gen alpha is literally all kids and teens, even.
Telling any support staff individual
"It just says error."
Punishment compounded based upon the degree of detailed information you simply decided to not bother reading before seeking assistance.
Lol
No, it should be punishable to build a system that just says "error" when it fails.
And just like that, Microsoft goes straight to jail LMAO.
But oh yeah, I've seen those. Those would also be included under this law! We can have both! Lol
Seriously though, I'm talking specifically when any little thing that stops someone from doing what they're doing and it'll usually say "Hey, this is why it's not working. Please tell someone this message."
"...it just says error?"
Hurt my soul. I'm so done with that nonsense lol.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
It says software has encountered an error: blahblahblah, click ok to quit
Every fucking time they skip over the bit we actually need to hear
A lot of very important things have already been suggested and I agree with most. I won't just re-state what others have said, instead I'll suggest a pet peeve of mine.
People who say "I love that for you". It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, it's always said in such a condescending and disingenuous way by every person I've ever heard say it, I just can't stand hearing it now.
Well bless your little heart then...
That's the southern version.
Well that explains the condescending tone. Thanks for the heads up.
Alcohol and gambling. The death and suffering these cause is unfathomable. Just within my small social sphere I've encountered numerous people that have had their entire families ripped apart or destroyed by these, particularly alcohol.
Not to diminish the harms of alcohol, but the USA tried that once and it went pretty badly. Prohibition of other drugs has also led to considerable harm. The cure may be worse than the disease here.
It bugs me that the lessons were learned with alcohol but they've double downed on everything else
How did prohibition go badly in the case of alcohol?
Are you talking about how there was resistance to it at all?
It created a massive black market which greatly increased the profitability of organized crime. That lead to a substantial increase in policing, often conducted with little regard for civil rights.
Not to mention the dangers of bootlegging when you don't know what you're doing. Methanol is suuuper toxic, and there were many people accidentally poisoned while making their own alcohols during prohibition. Shoot, just look at how dangerous it is to buy street drugs now with fentanyl everywhere these days. Ideally there should be regulation to protect consumers. Random drug dealers as well as corporations have proven themselves untrustworthy, and most drugs/alcohol have some medicinal/spiritual/sociocultural applications, so outright illegalization results in a net negative.
Are you going to pay my rent since apparently my life is yours to control?
If alcohol and gambling only affected the lives of those partaking in them, then we wouldn't have a problem.
Kittenhood. The minimum sentence: lifetime of cuddling, free food and play.
nooo not the cuddling!!
tobacco should be treated at least as bad as weed
Prohibitionists make me sick. If only we could prohibit them from existing.
there's more than one way for what i described: regulate tobacco like weed or regulate weed like tobacco, and having it ssomewhere in between of your choice
Land ownership, mandatory minimum sentence, death
It shouldn't be criminalized; it just shouldn't exist as a concept it is today.
People should have a private place to live on, but shouldn't own anything else to profit off it.
Fun fact: The Native Americans had no concept of land ownership. It's how "Squatter's Rights" was used to justify European occupation of native lands.
To the natives, land was meant to be used, not owned. For Europeans, they would look at a section of land and say "Who owns this? Nobody? Well, I guess it's mine now."
Being raised in a world dominated by European ideals, it's easy to disregard how those ideals may have been challenged and if we really received the best outcome.
Driving a vehicle that can be heard over several suburan blocks
Driving like a fucking idiot.
Park shade designers. All of them. Replace them with two guys from anywhere that have had a sunburn and know how to install a roof.
Letting your pet shit or piss on someone else's property without permission.
Abolish suburbs and reeducate everyone with suburb brain
I'm not actually sure what this is intended to mean in this context.
AI
Killing animals
I was asked to feed an outdoor cat in my neighborhood. I did. Several small animals have likely died because I helped one feel more comfortable. Do I need to go to prison.
I exist in USA where habitat is constantly destroyed for profit. There is no way for me to not be a part of this system. Should I be executed?
I fixed some damage to my home where there were carpenter ants digging in the wood. Not only did several likely die, but I also ruined their home. Shackle me to a trailer hitch.
I should have been more specific. The point isn't about what predators do in the wild, or about accidental, unavoidable deaths. It's about the violence that is intentional, done on a massive scale, and most importantly, completely unnecessary. It all boils down to choice. A lion in the wild isn't having a moral debate about its next meal; it's just surviving. We, on the other hand, have tons of other options. Nobody's talking about punishing someone for accidentally stepping on a bug. It's about questioning the entire systems that treat living, feeling beings like they're just products for our pleasure or convenience, when it's totally avoidable.
Put all wild meat eating animals in prison!
Because animals are usually subject to human laws?
Humans have the reasoning and introspection required to make the choice to not do unnecessary harm to animals, a lion does not.
And don't get started on hyenas. Fuckers.
*most humans have
It's like humor, most people have it but not all people have it 😉
Oops! I was trying to make a point but got called out on it so now it's just a joke! 🤡
Not my fault if you thought someone really thinks this:
Guess some people really neads the /s tag lol
Are you stupid or pretending to be?
Lol, projection at it's finest.
If you are going through a place with a drive through that wraps around the building and you pull up far enough to block the exit so that it fucks up the works and an employee has to come out and direct traffic to unfuck it you should have your license revoked. Clearly you don't have the situational awareness to be operating a motor vehicle.
Chewing tobacco
Not using your blinkers on a roundabout
Alcool
How would Northern Europeans/Germanics socialize?!
Socialize ? What for ????? 🤣
They could change their culture to stop being so boring.
French
Killing animals to eat their flesh. Murder is fucked up, human or not.
I disagree, but i would be happier with better conditions. I still think murder is wrong, and I oppose it, but if you remove the torture aspect I admit you're doing dramatically less harm.
That's completely fair, I was thinking more of the day in day out torture when I wrote that. My bad.
That's kind of an absurd statement, isn't it?
If you murder me by shooting me in the back of the head while I'm not looking, that's not torture.
Obviously I still don't want you to kill me, but... It's still not torture, it's a different thing, and we have different words for that... it's murder, or killing, or slaughter.
Please keep in mind I'm not making a moral or ethical judgement, but a definitional one. Torture is a different thing.
If, as you say
How are you defining torture?
Did I torture my dearly beloved pets when they had cancer or infections bad enough that I had to have them put down? No! What an odd and cruel thing that would be for me to say!
But they still didn't want to die, and I didn't want them to either. That's not torture.
You'd get a lot more agreeing by saying "Fuck it do whatever you want animals aren't people" so fuck your entire argument.
Oh? You can ethically rape someone? You can ethically murder someone? What do you think animal agriculture entails?
Try telling that to the animals
Animals don't share our sense of morality and it would be ridiculous to expect them to.
We also don't typically arrest other species.
"typically"
I'm going to need the examples you're thinking of where we did please... they should be quite amusing with my morning coffee tomorrow :-)
I'm not them, but
https://www.weirdhistorian.com/a-few-cases-of-killer-pigs-facing-capital-punishment/
Note: I suggest you don't look up "(type of animal) arrested," because most of what pops up is horrible people arrested for doing terrible things to animals. (Although a couple cats have been "arrested" in modern times.) I just happened to remember the pig trials of yore.
Sadly this is not amusing as I had hoped at all ... I should have expected as much. :-(
That means we don't have to have our own sense of morality 🤡
So let them out...?
this sounds like you are judging individuals based on their membership in a class. this sounds like paternalistic speciesism.
Absolutely. And I further submit that if we're to think of ourselves as an intelligent, enlightened, civilized, and technological species, moving beyond our predatory instinct is one of the first prerequisites. Only once we completely stop exploiting animals can we in good faith say we're actually materially better than any other animal species. Until then we're just lions with computers.
What's the first thing we claim sets us apart from every other animal? Oh right, how humans aren't beholden to natural instincts and have advanced beyond mindless killing machines. We say while buying another hamburger because we can't even get past the primal urge to keep eating animal meat as soon as we taste it because that urge literally evolved in a time where the only choices were to hunt or starve. With all our technology you'd think we'd embrace more efficient ways of nutrient delivery.
Step 1: stop the exploitation of other humans. This is gonna probably be the biggest roadblock not gonna lie.
You're right, and furthering the cause against exploitation of humans will help those values to be applied to animals as well. Both are exploitation and come from similar motives and perceived hierarchy. I'd say that a society that has completely ended exploitation of humans will most likely be one that has also ended exploitation of animals because the values that drive the former will also drive the latter. There are very few cases where it's human lives OR animal lives.
Before we can tackle the exploitation of minorities, we need to completely end the exploitation of white people
🤡
Posting on TikTok. TikTok is an evil mind-virus control app. Posting on it, like other closed source apps, fuels surveillance capitalism and ccp communism.