Requiring agreement to some unspecified ever-changing terms of service in order to use the product you just bought, especially when use of such products is required in the modern world. Google and Apple in particular are more or less able to trivially deny any non-technical person access to smartphones and many things associated with them like access to mobile banking. Microsoft is heading that way with Windows requiring MS accounts, too, though they're not completely there yet.
I think tacking on irrelevant laws onto popular bills to get them passed shouldn’t be allowed.
Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to trade stocks, especially when they’re in a position to pass laws that would directly affect their holdings.
Super PACs, it’s absolutely wild that that’s a thing IMO.
I think there should also be a “cooling off” period of some sort over passing/repealing laws. I’m thinking as an example of the Republicans after Obamacare was passed, when they tried to repeal it something like 70 times in 10 years. I get that things change and laws sometimes need to be amended or updated, but there should really be some system in place to prevent people from spamming up the whole system like that.
victims don’t “encourage” their abusers. these are predatory practices designed to hook in as many people vulnerable to gambling addiction as possible. you have a misconception about the people that get hooked into these things. most of them are not “idiot gamers” nor oil barons, they are either children or neurodivergent people.
It’s naive to think that someone is at fault for falling prey to the psychological tactics publishers use to push people toward micro transactions.
If you think about it, it’s really not that different from saying people with gambling addictions deserve to be broke. Microtransactions might seem like an obvious scam to a lot of people, but a lot of people fall it and waiving it away and saying they deserve it will only make the problem worse.
While there are gamers hooked on gambling machines, the industry will continue to produce more and more blatant gambling machines… instead of actual balanced games.
Absurd? Yes. Surprising? No. If you put children in bathing suits to decide which is the hottest child? It’s not shocking to hear that they want to marry these hot children.
Why? I have to imagine it would be nice if I lived in a walkable city to wake up in the mornings by going for a walk with a coffee to wake up— I mean I might just go to coffee shop so I don’t have to lug it about but it doesn’t seem especially egregious
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 not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn’t consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to “correct” children’s (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting?
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn’t want it. Whether it’s morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don’t have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
Do you think that children enjoy getting shots?
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.
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.
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.
Then not all of them have to be for rent. In my country at least you can buy individual apartments.
Also you could allow them to own the property they build, but once sold off, they or another corporation (or individual with too many properties, maybe the limit can be 3 or 4) cannot buy them again.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer and this was just a quick suggestion. I expect people more familiar with the law can word this better.
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.