I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.
“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”
vocabulary.com: “When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that’s a mutilation.”
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn’t happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn’t even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
If you chop someone’s leg off without consent for no good reason, that’s mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that’s a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that’s not your intent, but that’s the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
It’s fine as a concept, it allows you to live somewhere without making a commitment long-term.
But there needs to be more regulations in place, like maybe making it illegal for corporations to buy residential property and requiring by law that any new residential building must have the option to buy as well as rent, with regulations to ensure it’s a fair price.
making it illegal for corporations to buy residential property
It’s not quite that simple though. What do you mean by “residential property”? Single-family homes? A duplex? Okay, that sounds fine, but what about an apartment high rise? That’s a residential property, and there’s not a great way to have it all be rental property without being owned by a corporation of some kind. Even when you talk about renting far few units–such as an owner-occupied apartment building with 4 units in total (these are fairly common in Chicago, which is the rental market I’m most familiar with)–a “corporation” may be something like an LLC in order to shield the owner from personal financial liability in case of catastrophic loss. (And yes, I’m aware that incorporating as a small business can and does get abused. In theory there are checks against that, in practice they don’t help in many cases since there’s too much going on for any municipality to go after every single case of business fraud.)
Of course, you don’t want individuals owning vast tracts of residential properties either; that takes all the problems of corporations owning property, and concentrates them into the hands of one person.
I think that there might be a way to regulate and incentivize behaviour through tax policy, but I’m not sure what it would be. Perhaps a system that put a hard cap on profits, and required certain percentages of rent to always go into maintenance and improvements? You’d probably also want to exempt corporations that owned or had control over 6 or fewer units.
This would be a fun (read: complex and challenging) area of public policy to get involved in, because you want to make housing affordable, but you also don’t want to disincentivize development.
Ninja edit: I’m saying all of this not because I’m pro-corp, or pro-gov’t, but because any time you try and fix a problem, you’re going to have bad actors that are going to try and break your system in order to get as much personal profit out of it as they can. Trying to find the weak points and then reinforcing them makes it harder for good ideas to be abused to a negative end.
Housing shouldn’t be gatekept. Rent as we know it is broken. Someone owns a property, while you pay the mortgage. But you’re not paying down to own, you’re paying it down for someone else to own. Sure, renting is fine for people who move a lot, but that money shouldn’t be flushed down the drain every month—from the position of the renter. Rental credits, to where that money you’re putting down acts as a credit toward getting the opportunity to own. His would take a massive restructuring of the way we behave as a society, but it’s desperately needed.
Honestly? Alcohol. I used to work security at a rehab, and it was always the worst addiction. The withdrawls are horrible, up to and including death. Yes, even worse than heroin.
I am in my late 30s. Drank in college with friends at parties. I dont anymore just not into it. I like things that make me faster, smarter, or stronger. I dont understand why all TV shows and movies seem to be centered around drinking when its a social scene. (I live in north america). Nothing good comes from drinking alcohol. They make it seem like if you’re relaxing or want to have fun you need alcohol. I just need a good brisket for both those.
Read up on US prohibition and how it funded the Mafia. It just changes the form of the societal disease.
The answer to addiction is having support and care on place for those that fall to it so society helps pick them up again. You can’t stop the abuse of substances unless you fix why people are crawling into a hole to avoid the world. Lack of mental health is a disease of society as well as the individual.
Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.
Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.
Why? Simply because this was actually tried in America? All I’m doing is answering the question. Just because this country failed at making it illegal does not mean it still shouldn’t be illegal.
I’d be fine with copyright being like 20 years or so, that’s plenty of time to make a good amount of money from your work IMO. But yeah the current system where some corporation gets to keep cashing in on something half a century after the author is dead is pretty ridiculous.
Not for something like medicine or crops that people will die if the copyright holder abuses their copyright. In that case we have to act for the greater good and make medicine first, compensate creators later, if at all.
the statute of Anne was the first copyright law and it was written to stop printers in London from breaking each others’ knees over who was allowed to print the world of Shakespeare who was already long dead.
copyright is a bill of goods when packaged as a protection for creatives.
Sustenance doesn’t mean “the only thing available”.
Look, I’m excited for lab-grown meat. I’ve reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be “in your camp” exactly, but I’m an ally. And it’s probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement “Animals shouldn’t be killed for pleasure.”
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not “for pleasure” to chose the option with meat?
Absolutely, the biggest nature lovers in my family are all hunters, they enjoy being in the woods, they enjoy seeing animals, they follow the rules to only harvest as much they are allowed and only during the season permitted.
It’s usually not that much extra effort to take the carcass and bring it to a butcher, so they do that sometimes. But yeah. Often, just leave it.
It’s actually not all that bad because we have a lack of natural predators (because we already hunted them almost to extinction) so hunting keeps the deer population from exploding.
A throwaway reference to another thread on here …. Someone tried to sue a restaurant when he choked on a bone in his boneless chicken wings. The court ruled he can’t sue because “boneless” is just a style of cooking and doesn’t make any claim about whether that meal has bones. …. That kind of misrepresentation, and dodging responsibility should be illegal. All sorts of scamming the customer should be illegal and isn’t
If I can go on a bit of a rant, I do believe in the power of the market to shape our lives, our economy, our society. Conservatives got that part right. But a market is only “free” when everyone plays by the same rules and has same facts and knowledge, free choice. A market is only beneficial when it is shaped by regulators to benefit society. A market is only sustainable when it incorporates externalities. If Conservatives are gung ho about free markets, they need to step up and do their part. While there’s a nice theory about the usefulness of Marketting, the primary use is to lie, subvert, fool, distort the market, and THAT should be illegal
Canada passed ‘rational servings’ laws a few years ago to this exact end. No more cases where a single-portion package would contain 1.6 servings, or whatnot.
If you want to argue for the ethical treatment of animals or that they deserve care and respect, that’s one thing, and I can respect it. But equating that to what humans, especially children, deserve is ridiculous. If it came down to saving the life of a child or an animal, it would be immoral to not choose the human child.
If you create intelligent life, it doesn’t matter who it is or how it came to exist. Your moral responsibilities to that specific creature are identical. I’m sure you can find edge cases where you have to make a decision between a human and a non-human animal, but even if those edge cases all go to the human, it does not excuse all the other cases where there is no human that has to suffer for you to live up to your responsibilities.
Humans have not created intelligent life, so your whole point is moot. Maybe it’ll become more relevant in the future, but at this current point in history, the only intelligent life that we “created”, has been our own children.
Qualified immunity for police officers. Prosecutors and judges basically get qualified immunity, too-- in that they can be caught engaging in all sorts of inappropriate and illegal activity without facing punishment because like police, it usually doesn’t even get to the extent of being charged.
Possibly controversial but prostitution. Allows for regulation and workplace safety. Would probably calm a lot of men down as well and help them focus on the more important aspects of getting into a relationship.