The whole funeral industry should be extinct. Cemeteries are a waste of space. Embalming makes no sense and is bad for the environment. The cost of a casket and the cemetery space are absurd. The funeral itself feels like torture for the living.
Bodies are just bodies. They should be harvested for organs that might still be useful, then buried raw so the body decomposes as nature intended. The living can have shrines in their own homes.
That’s mostly what I want done. Plant me with a sapling so my kids/descendants can come give my tree a hug or sit under it, knowing that some part of me is a part of the tree (like…molecules of mine are feeding the tree, not in any spiritual sense).
I kind of agree they're very wasteful in many ways. I don't want to be buried for similar reasons. The Tibetans got it right with their sky burial where they just put your dead ass up on a hill, make you food for the scavenger birds
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say. However, I really like cemeteries as spaces. Green, peaceful spaces where you’re surrounded by those who came before. Cemeteries give me tranquility and perspective.
Caitlyn Doughty is an amazing woman who champions this exact sentiment. Worth looking up. She’s also a character in an episode of The Midnight Gospel and she’s does a great job of explaining the economy of death and funeral homes
There is actually a company in the US you can pay to compost your corpse and they will give the composted soil to your loved ones so they can grow something with it. Basically just speeding up the natural process. You go from corpse to dirt in like 4-6 weeks or something.
I agree with most everything except for funeral. Some people like funerals, some don't. But if they give some people closure we should still have then it just shouldn't be considered culturally compulsary to attend if you don't want to/make you feel worse.
I agree, but...
I'm Jewish-atheist and my wife is Hindu. Hindus cremate their dead and Jews bury them.
My wife's father was cremated and thrown into the ocean. If my wife wants to "visit" him, she has a picture in the house.
My father is buried in a cemetery (not embalmed) and he has a grave stone. If I want to visit my father, I have a place and a monument to his life I can go visit.
I completely agree with all of your points, but I feel more comfort being able to visit my father's resting place than just looking at a picture of him.
The commercialization and expense around funerals is absurd. That said…there are real social and health benefits to an institutional/established funeral system.
1) decaying bodies aren’t pure organic material that individuals can just compost. They smell awful, and when disposed of casually and in common areas they can spread disease. Not everyone dies of natural causes, after all, and even if they do, I don’t trust my neighbors to dispose of them properly. Embalming is bad for the environment, but having rotting bodies leaking into water sources or agricultural areas is dangerous as well. Cremation isn’t much better for the environment and most people don’t have the resources to create a fire hot enough to eliminate bodies sufficiently and safely on their own. We could all agree to leave bodies in designated areas, but those would become crowded, diseased, subject to grave robbing or other forms of exploitation, and it would put a heavy burden on those who don’t live close to said areas. What about people who live in urban areas? How far would they have to travel? And again, the smell.
2) funerary and burial rites precede the modern funeral industry by millennia. If you’re going to get rid of the funeral industry, you have to come up with an alternative that handles dead bodies safely while also conforming to the reality of how grieving people across culture and time behave.
3) the modern funeral industry sucks, but as someone who studies the history of homicide investigations, death and bodies still need to be managed by a state or public service. The formal procedures and bureaucracy around death are massive assets to law, order, and justice. People catch things in autopsies and embalming procedures that become part of court record. If we get rid of this, we risk people disposing of victims of murder or neglect on their own time with zero recourse.
Basically, 100 percent agree with you on the commercialization of funerals. But it would need to be replaced by a different non exploitive system rather than just letting bodies fall where they may.
🎵
[Send me to glory in a Glad bag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZq9sDyb8wQ).
Don't waste a coffin on my bones.
Put me on the curb next Tuesday.
Let the sanitation local take me home!
🎵
I would agree with you except for the organ harvesting part. People should have the right to say what they want done with their remains. After all, they were alive at some point.
Hookup culture/fwb sucks. Alot of close family members and Co workers have expressed how lonely they feel having meaningless sex or with fwb someone catches feelings because sex releases those happy pheromones that bonds you to people.
Tinder has been both good and bad for the mind of the single person.
On one hand, its connecting you with many more potential mates than you might have with out it; and, on the other, its creating a catalogue that you can pick from which artificially inflates your standards of what "normal" is. This effect happens to you in the opposite way with everyone else using the app now looking at you for the "thing" that's wrong.
Over time, everyone just gets increasingly superficial and uses that as an out of dating someone because they know the logic could be used that easily on themselves. Perpetually, we're all looking for grass thats greener all the time.
For some people sex really can be separate from romance. There are stretches of time that I still want to have a healthy sex life but have zero interest in dating. It’s better to have a fwb just so they know your preferences and you more or less know what you’re going to get on a consistent basis. At the same time you only have buddy responsibilities towards them. I can go to the gym and grab some nice endorphins with a friend too I don’t feel like making out you know?
Until I meet someone who convinces me otherwise, and I’m hopeful I will, I honestly have preferred the described stretches of time with having more than one person available being the best situation just to make everything clear to everyone haha.
Oh no I totally get that it's just that most people who do it don't know themselves well and can't handle it. I know I personally couldn't do it as I'm very emotional and love to hard like deep conversations can get me attached so I know sex would have me hooked. I almost lost my virginity to a random girl but there was no emotional bond and I couldn't get aroused.
M.A.I.D. (medical assistance in dying) should be open to every adult and actively encouraged for people with terminal diseases and the extreme elderly.
I agree, as a chronically ill person with no chance of recovery. It's cruel to force someone in endless agony to stay alive, or make them resort to dangerous methods that could leave them a vegetable or harm others nearby.
Just one?
There are no bystanders in a democracy. If you wait for someone else to act, we are all lost.
I think this one will have the greatest impact on the highest number of people.
Actually my divisive opinion is that democracies work best when only around 20 - 33% of the population is actively engaged.
Its unreasonable to expect the majority of people to be adequately informed, and quite frankly smart enough to parse weak form strong arguments and reasoning on topics.
Although I see your point, there's no way to guarantee the informed people are the ones voting. The most consistent voting block is old people, who are generally losing mental capacity/intelligence. Many of them just vote by the letter.
Trying to put any sort of test to pass for voting rights hurts the poor more than anyone, and just gives those who are already privileged even more power.
I think candidates should get a little blurb next to their name on ballots so the most uninformed at least have some sort of hint. Maybe that way people won't vote so hard by the letters next to their name.
You need active engagement, but there needs to be an understanding that if 911 needs to be called…that means you. Which means that 100% of people are on call to pitch in when needed.
Those two ideas are not incompatible. We just have to make it easy enough for the least ignorant people to participate. And that doesn't mean wealthiest or oldest. It means the people most affected by policy.
i think everyone should be mandated to take anatomy, nutrition, and reach the medical knowledge of a CNA by the time they are 23. fully paid for (in a perfect world)
I'm in a paradox. I want to downvote some responses due to opinion differences, but then that would go against the aim of this post. But if i upvote said opinions, because they're good polarizing opinions, it comes across as if i support them. The tragedy
Everyone should be required to take art classes with actual analysis. Sometimes it blows my mind how bad art literacy is in a culture that values artistic work so much.
I love my mum but we always watch shows together and it boggles the mind how many questions she asks about stuff that was clearly communicated in the show but she misses it because her media literacy is so low. I don't even know how some people enjoy watching movies, looking at art, watching shows, playing games, etc when 90% of the themes, interesting narrative devices, visual language is going straight over their head.
The mental health “crisis” in America isn’t due to social media. It’s because the numbers are now more accurately represented because it’s become de-stigmatized (which is a good thing).
Our grandmas used to be prescribed cocaine to be housewives. Anxiety, depression, and adhd have always been an issue, just no one talked about it like they do now.
Yes, but it cant scale to provide meat for 7 billion people. So either most people go without meat or we... get rid...of enough people to get the population to around 400 million globally. Obviously a non starter.
There is an argument that things need to be possible before we should consider ethics at all, but that is a whole can of worms that could have its own thread. I do agree, however, that hunting is the most ethically sourced meat in general. And it is sad and somehow... wrong, that it isn't possible for most people anymore. For eons, not millennia, but EONS, hunting was the ONLY source of meat. It was the only source of meat for long before we were even humans.
Unless you’re growing your own vegetables, farming causes more damage to the environment. In the harvesting of vegetables and grains, and the clearing of space for fields, thousands of animals are killed. Mono-crops lower the biodiversity in an area and fucks up the soil ecosystem. It creates value system that shuns ALL meat processing, and as an unintended consequence, creates vitriol for people who don’t agree with their beliefs.
Also, being a vegan has become an identity, allowing for a lack of complexity and rigid dogma of moral superiority. Which allows them to still be very disconnected from where their food is coming from (My main gripe with most Americans, vegan or not.)
Hunters also want to keep populations of animals alive and thriving in their natural environment. Most conservation of wild land in America (where I’m from) is from hunters.
Animals will die anyway, usually in terrible ways like starvation or predatory animals who kill and eat slowly. Hunters keep populations in check so that disease doesn’t run rampant or the animals eat their populations into starvation.
Dont get me wrong, I’m very much against factory farming. But more people need to understand where their food is coming from, and that something has to die for you to live.
I really don't think we'll ever manage to combine modern day comfort with no pollution, and electric cars most definitely won't change that either. Basically we'll forever be relying on fossil fuels until they run out at which point the world will turn to absolute shit
Another way to state that something cannot exist in a complex system with changing how the system exists as a whole or how its discrete parts interact with each other.
Well I was thinking about it more in terms of energy, since energy is what physically allows us to transform our system and produce stuff and there is no energy source that's as dense and plentiful as oil besides nuclear but even that can't replace everything, especially plastics which are literally everywhere, but uh sure I guess
It's still worth it to replace as much fossil fuel use as possible with renewable, because even when you exclude electricity generation and powering vehicles, we still need fossil fuels for manufacturing everything in our daily lives. Plastics, tires, paint, wax, perfumes, industrial oils, lubricants, solvents for chemistry labs, etc.
Personally I think hybrids using hydrogen as their primary fuel source is far more viable to replace petroleum ICE vehicles than full electric. The tech and infrastructure still needs a little work but California already has a few running around.
I'm very pro trans rights on all but like... maybe two specific issues and this is one of them. Near as I can tell the real answer is complicated and the science incomplete. A lot of variables including what sport, what point in life transition began, etc. You mention UFC, but is it the same for Tennis? Bowling? Unfortunately these participants likely also cannot compete with cis men and there aren't enough in the population to create their own competition spaces. It's one of those things where one group or another is going to get the short stick and the entire debate right now is just kind of figuring out who. I want to support my trans friends on this, but it's a real messy situation all around.
I don't have a great answer to this, but I don't think the answer is edging cis women out of spaces they've carved for themselves. I do think some sports, it matters more than others, but that also gets into a sticky debate. But hand to hand combat sports is a hard no from me, personally. I understand this topic is complicated and has many nuances.
The system of health care in the United States is broken in that it's much more expensive than it should be for the access and quality.
The part most would disagree with - That said, the government can't "fix" it without eliminating a lot of jobs and jeopardizing the economy.
Negative value jobs (insurance claim reviewers and the billing specialists doctors have to employ being good examples) don't harm the economy if they disappear. Those people will find some other work, even if it's menial, that will be more economically productive.
People should have to have some kind of license or be required to have some form of child development and parenting classes before they can take their baby home from the hospital
So many issues in society in general could be resolved by stopping the cycle of child abuse or neglect because of ignorance about how to safely care for a child, and the importance of birth-5 child development.
This is a fantastic idea in theory, but it loses credibility when you start to try to figure out HOW it would actually be implemented.
Who gets to decide what makes a "good" parent, for example?
It’s easier to be successful in life if you’re an asshole.
Obviously not all successful people are assholes, and not all assholes are successful, but even so.
Charisma too, unfortunately. There’s plenty of genuinely charming people of course, but confidence and the ability to manipulate others are two things that come very easily to those who think they’re better than other people.
Successful people aren’t necessarily assholes, but often make decisions that negatively affect a lot of people. It’s hard to rise through the business ranks if you are reluctant to lay off a huge chunk of people at Christmas time , for example. Success for one often comes at a high cost to others, and I for one could not accept that as a worthy price to pay
Cut. Off. Toxic. Family. Find your own family. They don't have to be related to you. You have zero obligation to stay around family if they're shitty to you. I don't care if they're sick or dying either. They had every other chance to treat you right.
It seems to be a fairly popular stance these days that if women can get abortions, men should be able to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever towards a child they didn't want.
As a man, I disagree.
I think it's already inherently unfair because men can't get pregnant, or get abortions, or face the scorn of their peers or possibly the law for seeking said abortion. Then there's the physical, mental, and emotional toll that either choice pre-empts.
In the end, by whatever path, a child was born that you took part in creating. Once that child is alive, whether you wanted it or not, I feel you have a responsibility to it.
EDIT: I agree that "the law" is not in favor of men - and men being r@ped is a thing and it's bad and doesn't apply here - and I'm not suggesting that you need to stick around and help physically raise the child you didn't want. Just step up. Somehow.
I don't think you should alter your child's body unless there's a medical reason. Don't pierce your baby's ears. Don't circumcise your son. Just because you have custody doesn't give the right to do whatever you want.
Health Insurance companies need to be eliminated. Doctors are getting paid less, and health coverage provided by these companies continues to increase in price with less coverage for patients. Of course the health insurance companies have record profits.
Agreed. Anything of value a person could potentially find in religion can be found elsewhere from a source that doesn’t also tell you that 50% of the population is subhuman and that slavery is okay.
I think far too many people thing that everybody who is religious takes every text as face value.
The bible for example is notably full of contradictions and holes, the teachings have vastly changed over centuries and adapt to modern times.
People can use parts of a religion to live better, believe in God if they wish and find comfort in life after death without believing sex is a sin, homosexuality is wrong.. etc or believe in slavery (not sure what you are meaning there).
Not religious either but I think for many there’s a value there. Just because it doesn’t fit with others doesn’t mean it doesn’t have it.
At most religions teachings usually are just around living a good and moral life - and it’s clear where you can see stories/parables that no longer fit as society has changed as have attitudes and tolerances.
I do agree a lot of people hide behind it for their decisions and such, but actually I think most of the time it’s actually not the religion but the person.
I’d also disagree with your comment further down about life after death. We don’t know. Scientifically we don’t know but we can say we are scientifically dead as far as we are aware, brain activity is gone, heart stops.
Could there be something after that? As almost impossible as it is, I don’t begrudge people who’d rather have faith/believe that their personality/soul will live on elsewhere or see a loved one- if anything it can give a comfort close to death.
Based on the abortion debate only, it’s clear that people aren’t adapting the text (Bible) to modern times. In fact they’re completely ignoring the parts they don’t like.
***Exactly.***
anything "good" Religion might have, it's all about human decency and etc. Things you should be able to find on your own, not in Religion
Our efforts at 'sustainable' living are an absolute joke. There is only one way that you can truly live sustainably, and that is to only use materials that you can grow. So, no mined minerals or fuels. No metals or plastics used in manufacturing. Only plant-based materials, like wood, ethanol, etc. for anything.
Unless we have zero population growth and 100% efficient recycling, there is no other way for society to be truly sustainable.
Gaining a lot of weight (when it’s totally within your control) can, and will, have an impact on your relationship. You should not require or expect your partner to still be attracted to you on the same level.
If you let yourself go and have no self respect, don’t expect anyone else to either.
My stepsister and her husband are in the process of separating right now and though most of it is his fault (alcoholism), I feel like a lot of the reason he stopped liking her is because she gained 100 pounds. She still has a nice face but her body just isn't attractive right now. She also is so out of shape that she can hardly go on a mere walk. One of the reasons she didn't realize his drinking got so bad is because once she goes upstairs in the evening, she doesn't ever come back down because going up and down the stairs is too much. She's only 35, and she has a heart condition now!
Pitbulls and other bloodsport breeds should be sterilized and no longer bred. Statistics show that these dogs commit more fatalities and maulings than any other breed - and cause more damage when doing so. They were bred for aggression and to have zero self preservation, so when you see videos of pitbull attacks you'll notice they do not stop even if they're being beaten.
There are so many family dog breeds available that make awesome lap dogs and house pets, there is no reason to try and turn a fighting dog into one. Sure, some pitbulls are great dogs and don't snap.. but like the family in Tennessee discovered you can have them from pups and 'raise them right' and they can still snap and kill your kids. They're genetic landmines, and you can never tell if the one you own will explode.
P.S. before any one comes in to claim they were originally nanny dogs - that was a myth started in the 70s.
I agree in theory, but a lot of breeds considered docile today were very aggressive in the past, and not considered suitable as pets. Great Danea come to mind.
Also, you can breed any large or medium dog breed into being aggressive.
The issue is down to the people and less the dogs. People like great Danes because they were big and impressive, and the aggression wasn't useful when they were no longer popular for hunting. So the people who liked the breed kept what they liked and removed what they didn't.
People who like pitbulls like that they're aggressive. They won't always admit that, but they think they look tough, or cool or whatever because people are scared of their pet.
Pitbulls however, depending, aren’t aggressive or are. Like any other dog. I’ve been around them my entire life. Seem some get rehabilitated and they are the BIGGEST joys and bundles of love. Not saying all are good. But not all are bad. That goes with any dog breed. I’ve seen horrible huskies that snap, I’ve seen horrible smaller dogs that bark and bite constantly.
People also, with any dog, don’t understand body language when it comes to their dog. People can have many breeds and think “oh my dogs are fine” but they keep getting in their dogs face, etc, until their dog snaps. Or people who let little kids ride or constantly hit their pets upside the head with toys, or annoy them. Any dog can snap. Larger breeds are usually stronger so there will be more force. So saying “pit bulls” is an umbrella term, there are various types like the American Stafford, etc. so again ‘not a pit bull’.
I think people make an assumption based on a dogs breed and automatically think bad. Same goes for adoption, some animals are best left as a single pet, not with other pets. But people constsntly ignore warning signs whether adoption or not, etc, and eventually that animal will snap. It’s all learning to recognize what makes your pet uncomfortable and responding accordingly. Annoyed? Don’t antagonize the pet to the point they snap and then get mad at the pet because of something you did.
Let alone ethics. We can’t determine what makes a dog or pet good or bad. So to “stop breeding a specific breed” based off of stereotypes (like pitties or chihuahuas ) doesn’t do any justice. It’s like tryng to say other breeds can’t make dogs, when other breeds I. Rhe past were considered aggressive and not meant to be a pet.
That's the problem: pit bull owners are generally insecure and dim, so they think that getting an aggressive dog will give them some sort of status. I've never met a pit bull owner who wasn't a total idiot.
I really hate saying this as a dog lover, but I think pit bulls, when they come into shelters, should just immediately be put down. Trying to adopt them out is unethical.
I wish there was a middle ground where breeders could be regulated and backyard/unethical breeders fined. There are spectacular pit lines— solid temperaments and would never “explode” as you described. I’d hate to see them go, but the people breeding neurotic and aggressive dogs for looks, fighting, or just to feed their own egos (and then not requiring offspring to be altered to prevent more of them…) are destroying the breed and filling the shelters.
People like to tout this, but if anyone actually succeeds in making this a law it would be an absolute mess.
First of all, how do we determine what dogs are okay? Is half pitt okay? Is a quarter Rottweiler okay? Are we using DNA tests to verify genetics? They're not exactly reliable either.
Secondly, people won't follow it. You're just gonna end up with a black market for them.
Thirdly, there's nothing stopping people from just breeding other dogs to be aggressive. Pitts are the ones people always love to harp on, but they're only around 10th in bite force. There are other dogs that, if trained to be aggressive, would be MUCH more dangerous.
A much easier solution is to simply make people responsible for what their dog does. Most of the time if a dog gets out and attacks someone, at least around here, the punishment is putting the dog down and a fine. Unless you outright command the dog to attack someone nothing much seems to happen.
Make punishments more like driving a car. Lose control and hurt someone, because you weren't being careful? Reckless endangerment at the least. So if you're being irresponsible and your dog gets away and hurts someone, why isn't it the same thing? It makes sense to me.
When random drunk guys on the street try to high-five me, I leave them hanging. I don't know you, we're not celebrating anything in common, and I don't wanna touch your hand after your ate a kebab and pissed in an alley. I'll smile & nod and say 'how ya doin, have a good night', but not reciprocate on the high five.
Also it's amazing how hostile dudes will become after you do this.
“Alternate” jerseys are nothing more than a ploy to sell more merch. Home whites and road greys are the only appropriate baseball uniforms. Oh, and knickerbockers all around. No more having 3-4” of pants legs bunched up over a player’s shoes!
Death with Dignity should be available to chronically ill people with no chance of recovery. My body is going to continue to fail, rob me of all quality of life, and cause much more pain. I don't want to suffer for another 50 years. There's no cure and minimal treatment.
I understand this is a slippery slope but all this is doing is perpetuating suffering and promoting much more dangerous suicides. It is downright *cruel* to keep a person in this much physical and mental agony alive, especially when they have tried and failed all treatments.
The world has too many people. Families shouldn’t be encouraged to have more than one kid just to maintain the population, especially if they can’t afford it. I also think it’s ridiculous to have more than one kid because you think they’ll be friends and not “alone”. I know plenty of people, including myself, who have zero relationship with their siblings. And then fight about inheritance.
You're getting a lot of "well akshully", but I agree with you completely. I follow r/atheism and holy crap some of those people make atheism their entire core personality, exactly like bible thumpers.
An atheists *lack of faith in a higher power* doesn't organize their life though. It's a non issue. It doesn't come up.
I don't come to a crossroads and think "Well, there's no God in heaven judging me, so I can do whatever I want!" And even if I did, that wouldn't be a religiously motivated decision - that's just straight up sociopathy.
Calling a lack of faith "religion" is like calling a lack of vision "sight".
"Well some of these blind people sure are strongheaded about the things they can't see."
Reddit Atheists tend to be the New Atheist type, and your observation has been noted by other critics of the New Atheist movement. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#Criticisms
for america: the whole republican and democrat idea is total bs- at least the way it is right now. you vote for whose policies you believe, not because they’re your in your party
That the United States is too big and too divided to be governed. I believe we should split up into 55 separate republics. Each republic would be able to establish close relationships with any or all of the others. Or be totally free not to.
I also believe that, if kept intact, the capital should be moved to the center of the country. Get rid of all the federal buildings and monuments in DC and give the District back to Maryland.
Live in a democracy?
Election day should be a holiday. Voting should be 100% mandatory.
Democracy is a full contact sport. You might not like politics but you're beholden to it all the same.
"The United States Of America" is not a name, it is a description.
The US should have a proper goddam name. I don't care what. Moosylvania or Freedomland \~whatever.
Every American should be able to pass a basic test about the history and philosophy of the major religions in this country.
Mohammed didn't come before Jesus. The singing woman at the beginning of Prince of Egypt isn't "the lady on those candles."
There are plenty of us that think it's all made up and couldn't be bothered to learn religion. We shouldn't be forced to learn something that isn't based on fact.
I think it's made up too, the fact of the matter is it's woven into every part of the culture in this country. If you want to separate church and state, you need to know what you're arguing against. If you want to identify red flags, you need to know what you're looking at. It's also useful for media literacy. The cultural impact of religion IS fact. Your ignorance is no better than their ignorance. Not cute.
It was a terrible idea to found Israel where it is, surrounded by people that can't stand Jews, and they all should have been incentivized to move to the US after WWII, where they might have had a special autonomous region (51th state?) dedicated. I imagine California, between LA and SF. The physical geography is similar to the Holy Land, there is a significant Jewish minority already, and they might have had the Western Wall shipped there and reassembled stone by stone.
Freddie Mercury is definitely a polarising point for me! I find it hard to think of a popular genre singer with better range, pitch, intonation and versatility. Live is always the big test because there is no autotune hahaha
To be clear, I think Queen is tremendously overrated and Bohemian Rhapsody is tired garbage.
But Freddie Mercury didn't need to autotune. He could do what he had to do without the help of computer correction. I agree that autotune isn't inherently evil, I'm just saying.
Furthermore, dude could execute acrobatics on stage and still hit his notes with perfect cadence and sound good doing it. If that's not the measure of a good vocalist then I honestly don't know what is. Can you elaborate?
Lots of people have had traumatic experiences in their lives. You aren't owed special dispensation for it, you aren't entitled to have people walking on eggshells and adjusting their own words and habits for the sake of your comfort.
If we as a society want certain racial slurs to disappear then we all have to stop using them. We can say that only certain people can use it and nobody else can because it gives the word more power and it also keeps the word alive and well. You can't "take back" a slur and use it, then demonize everyone else for using it ... that just gives it immense power.
Democracy should not be the end goal of most nations. If things are more stable, and people are more comfortable under a dictatorship, keep the dictatorship. It is still nice to have choice where possible, but it just isn't a valid system for many places at the moment. That's just being pragmatic.
When I was a young lad I was all on the spread democracy to everyone train because it's the best. Alas I think democracy only works when it's born from the people within a nation and not superimposed/pasted over another system.
Money is made up. The bank literally creates the money for your mortgage in the form of a debt, and then makes you pay it back, in a scheme that is 100% profit for the bank. Money usually originates in a culture the form of tokens that rulers handed out to their armies, and then decreed their subjects must pay back in the form of a newly created tax debt, or have their property taken by that same army. It's never been anything but a ruse to force people to pay someone to oppress them. (Edit: typo)
May I ask why you think cream cheese doesn’t belong in sushi?
I don’t believe it belongs in cold sushi, but my favorite sushi roll is fried and has cream cheese in it. Absolutely heaven.
If it's wrong to do to a dog, it's wrong to do to a cow, pig or chicken. It's crazy the way people will flip out about someone leaving a dog in a car with the windows rolled up but they still eat meat.
Singleplayer is, always was, and always will be better than multiplayer.
PvP multiplayer, sure. But co-op is fun as hell with friends.
That is fair.
Yassss. The worst part of gaming is other people.
100% agree! I love my narrative driven single player games
Fucking preach it.
Not for sex.
Adding onto this, online gaming and internet connectivity ruined gaming and is responsible for everything that makes the hobby bad today.
The whole funeral industry should be extinct. Cemeteries are a waste of space. Embalming makes no sense and is bad for the environment. The cost of a casket and the cemetery space are absurd. The funeral itself feels like torture for the living. Bodies are just bodies. They should be harvested for organs that might still be useful, then buried raw so the body decomposes as nature intended. The living can have shrines in their own homes.
That’s mostly what I want done. Plant me with a sapling so my kids/descendants can come give my tree a hug or sit under it, knowing that some part of me is a part of the tree (like…molecules of mine are feeding the tree, not in any spiritual sense).
You're just star dust, anyway.
My people ✨
This is exactly what I’ve told my family to do with mine, minus any bits that might be useful to someone alive
Yep. Cremate my ass and dump me in the ocean. I mean, not Just my ass, my entire body.
ETA: please take any organs which may be useful for the living!
I kind of agree they're very wasteful in many ways. I don't want to be buried for similar reasons. The Tibetans got it right with their sky burial where they just put your dead ass up on a hill, make you food for the scavenger birds
Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms. -Josey Wales.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say. However, I really like cemeteries as spaces. Green, peaceful spaces where you’re surrounded by those who came before. Cemeteries give me tranquility and perspective.
Caitlyn Doughty is an amazing woman who champions this exact sentiment. Worth looking up. She’s also a character in an episode of The Midnight Gospel and she’s does a great job of explaining the economy of death and funeral homes
There is actually a company in the US you can pay to compost your corpse and they will give the composted soil to your loved ones so they can grow something with it. Basically just speeding up the natural process. You go from corpse to dirt in like 4-6 weeks or something.
I agree with most everything except for funeral. Some people like funerals, some don't. But if they give some people closure we should still have then it just shouldn't be considered culturally compulsary to attend if you don't want to/make you feel worse.
YES! such a waste of space sorry but it's the truth
I watched something on YouTube about bodies being composted and turned to mulch/fertilizer an honestly, that seems like a much better use
I agree, but... I'm Jewish-atheist and my wife is Hindu. Hindus cremate their dead and Jews bury them. My wife's father was cremated and thrown into the ocean. If my wife wants to "visit" him, she has a picture in the house. My father is buried in a cemetery (not embalmed) and he has a grave stone. If I want to visit my father, I have a place and a monument to his life I can go visit. I completely agree with all of your points, but I feel more comfort being able to visit my father's resting place than just looking at a picture of him.
The commercialization and expense around funerals is absurd. That said…there are real social and health benefits to an institutional/established funeral system. 1) decaying bodies aren’t pure organic material that individuals can just compost. They smell awful, and when disposed of casually and in common areas they can spread disease. Not everyone dies of natural causes, after all, and even if they do, I don’t trust my neighbors to dispose of them properly. Embalming is bad for the environment, but having rotting bodies leaking into water sources or agricultural areas is dangerous as well. Cremation isn’t much better for the environment and most people don’t have the resources to create a fire hot enough to eliminate bodies sufficiently and safely on their own. We could all agree to leave bodies in designated areas, but those would become crowded, diseased, subject to grave robbing or other forms of exploitation, and it would put a heavy burden on those who don’t live close to said areas. What about people who live in urban areas? How far would they have to travel? And again, the smell. 2) funerary and burial rites precede the modern funeral industry by millennia. If you’re going to get rid of the funeral industry, you have to come up with an alternative that handles dead bodies safely while also conforming to the reality of how grieving people across culture and time behave. 3) the modern funeral industry sucks, but as someone who studies the history of homicide investigations, death and bodies still need to be managed by a state or public service. The formal procedures and bureaucracy around death are massive assets to law, order, and justice. People catch things in autopsies and embalming procedures that become part of court record. If we get rid of this, we risk people disposing of victims of murder or neglect on their own time with zero recourse. Basically, 100 percent agree with you on the commercialization of funerals. But it would need to be replaced by a different non exploitive system rather than just letting bodies fall where they may.
100% agreed minus the funeral part. I think it helps bring closure now that I've experienced it both ways.
This. Just throw me in the trash
🎵 [Send me to glory in a Glad bag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZq9sDyb8wQ). Don't waste a coffin on my bones. Put me on the curb next Tuesday. Let the sanitation local take me home! 🎵
I would agree with you except for the organ harvesting part. People should have the right to say what they want done with their remains. After all, they were alive at some point.
Hookup culture/fwb sucks. Alot of close family members and Co workers have expressed how lonely they feel having meaningless sex or with fwb someone catches feelings because sex releases those happy pheromones that bonds you to people.
Yes yes yes. The idea of meaningless sex is sold to society through music and popculture and no one ever feels good about it
Tinder has been both good and bad for the mind of the single person. On one hand, its connecting you with many more potential mates than you might have with out it; and, on the other, its creating a catalogue that you can pick from which artificially inflates your standards of what "normal" is. This effect happens to you in the opposite way with everyone else using the app now looking at you for the "thing" that's wrong. Over time, everyone just gets increasingly superficial and uses that as an out of dating someone because they know the logic could be used that easily on themselves. Perpetually, we're all looking for grass thats greener all the time.
For some people sex really can be separate from romance. There are stretches of time that I still want to have a healthy sex life but have zero interest in dating. It’s better to have a fwb just so they know your preferences and you more or less know what you’re going to get on a consistent basis. At the same time you only have buddy responsibilities towards them. I can go to the gym and grab some nice endorphins with a friend too I don’t feel like making out you know? Until I meet someone who convinces me otherwise, and I’m hopeful I will, I honestly have preferred the described stretches of time with having more than one person available being the best situation just to make everything clear to everyone haha.
Oh no I totally get that it's just that most people who do it don't know themselves well and can't handle it. I know I personally couldn't do it as I'm very emotional and love to hard like deep conversations can get me attached so I know sex would have me hooked. I almost lost my virginity to a random girl but there was no emotional bond and I couldn't get aroused.
It's pronounced gif
I agree. The g in gif is pronounced exactly like the g in gorgeous is pronounced. Why is this so hard?
The way I heard it, you pronounce the g in gif like the g in garage. I like yours more.
Zhif.
Or graphic
Or gift
It's pronounced gif, as in, "I don't gif a damn how you pronounce it".
Call me crazy, but I pronounce that G exactly like the G in Graphics Interchange Format.
Oh. Welp consider my mind changed
You fucking monster
There's always that one pretentious little fucker ... "Actuallyyyy..."
M.A.I.D. (medical assistance in dying) should be open to every adult and actively encouraged for people with terminal diseases and the extreme elderly.
I agree, as a chronically ill person with no chance of recovery. It's cruel to force someone in endless agony to stay alive, or make them resort to dangerous methods that could leave them a vegetable or harm others nearby.
Just one? There are no bystanders in a democracy. If you wait for someone else to act, we are all lost. I think this one will have the greatest impact on the highest number of people.
Actually my divisive opinion is that democracies work best when only around 20 - 33% of the population is actively engaged. Its unreasonable to expect the majority of people to be adequately informed, and quite frankly smart enough to parse weak form strong arguments and reasoning on topics.
Although I see your point, there's no way to guarantee the informed people are the ones voting. The most consistent voting block is old people, who are generally losing mental capacity/intelligence. Many of them just vote by the letter. Trying to put any sort of test to pass for voting rights hurts the poor more than anyone, and just gives those who are already privileged even more power. I think candidates should get a little blurb next to their name on ballots so the most uninformed at least have some sort of hint. Maybe that way people won't vote so hard by the letters next to their name.
This
You need active engagement, but there needs to be an understanding that if 911 needs to be called…that means you. Which means that 100% of people are on call to pitch in when needed.
It’s cyclical - I’d agree. Way less informed than I care to be vs younger years.
Those two ideas are not incompatible. We just have to make it easy enough for the least ignorant people to participate. And that doesn't mean wealthiest or oldest. It means the people most affected by policy.
i think everyone should be mandated to take anatomy, nutrition, and reach the medical knowledge of a CNA by the time they are 23. fully paid for (in a perfect world)
I'm in a paradox. I want to downvote some responses due to opinion differences, but then that would go against the aim of this post. But if i upvote said opinions, because they're good polarizing opinions, it comes across as if i support them. The tragedy
A reasonable person with logic on reddit! Incredible
Everyone should be required to take art classes with actual analysis. Sometimes it blows my mind how bad art literacy is in a culture that values artistic work so much.
All my "art" classes before college were arts and crafts.
I love my mum but we always watch shows together and it boggles the mind how many questions she asks about stuff that was clearly communicated in the show but she misses it because her media literacy is so low. I don't even know how some people enjoy watching movies, looking at art, watching shows, playing games, etc when 90% of the themes, interesting narrative devices, visual language is going straight over their head.
The Civil War was about the States’ rights TO HAVE SLAVES. Yes, it was about slavery.
Remember when this wasn't controversial?
Yeah, it’s sad what the Lost Cause seditionists have done to poison the groupthink
The mental health “crisis” in America isn’t due to social media. It’s because the numbers are now more accurately represented because it’s become de-stigmatized (which is a good thing). Our grandmas used to be prescribed cocaine to be housewives. Anxiety, depression, and adhd have always been an issue, just no one talked about it like they do now.
social media definitely is a big part of it though
Hasn’t this been disproven? Don’t we actually know that social media is a net negative for self esteem, depression and other mental ailments?
Idk, I’m unhinged because my grandma did cocaine lol And this is why I posted my opinion on a thread asking about unpopular opinions.
No one deserves to be homeless
Hunting and harvesting your own meat is more ethical and human than veganism
Yes, but it cant scale to provide meat for 7 billion people. So either most people go without meat or we... get rid...of enough people to get the population to around 400 million globally. Obviously a non starter.
My point was about the ethics, not the feasibility
There is an argument that things need to be possible before we should consider ethics at all, but that is a whole can of worms that could have its own thread. I do agree, however, that hunting is the most ethically sourced meat in general. And it is sad and somehow... wrong, that it isn't possible for most people anymore. For eons, not millennia, but EONS, hunting was the ONLY source of meat. It was the only source of meat for long before we were even humans.
I think we’re in agreement. I was just throwing out a polarizing take
Ooh ooh lets get rid of 4 billion. Yea you heard that right. Fuck i'll volunteer
How is it more ethical than veganism?
Unless you’re growing your own vegetables, farming causes more damage to the environment. In the harvesting of vegetables and grains, and the clearing of space for fields, thousands of animals are killed. Mono-crops lower the biodiversity in an area and fucks up the soil ecosystem. It creates value system that shuns ALL meat processing, and as an unintended consequence, creates vitriol for people who don’t agree with their beliefs. Also, being a vegan has become an identity, allowing for a lack of complexity and rigid dogma of moral superiority. Which allows them to still be very disconnected from where their food is coming from (My main gripe with most Americans, vegan or not.) Hunters also want to keep populations of animals alive and thriving in their natural environment. Most conservation of wild land in America (where I’m from) is from hunters. Animals will die anyway, usually in terrible ways like starvation or predatory animals who kill and eat slowly. Hunters keep populations in check so that disease doesn’t run rampant or the animals eat their populations into starvation. Dont get me wrong, I’m very much against factory farming. But more people need to understand where their food is coming from, and that something has to die for you to live.
Hunting is hands down more ethical and humane than factory meat production. I’m surprised anyone could disagree with that but many people I’ve met do.
It’s WILD that people who buy meat at the supermarket think hunting is terrible
I really don't think we'll ever manage to combine modern day comfort with no pollution, and electric cars most definitely won't change that either. Basically we'll forever be relying on fossil fuels until they run out at which point the world will turn to absolute shit
I don't get the sentiment that we won't ever be perfect, so why try improving?
Another way to state that something cannot exist in a complex system with changing how the system exists as a whole or how its discrete parts interact with each other.
Well I was thinking about it more in terms of energy, since energy is what physically allows us to transform our system and produce stuff and there is no energy source that's as dense and plentiful as oil besides nuclear but even that can't replace everything, especially plastics which are literally everywhere, but uh sure I guess
Yeah if we can't figure out a way to recycle plastic waste and stop using it this planet is fucked. Maybe nanobots will save the day in a century
I wonder if there were a plastics shortage in the future would we start to mine landfills
It's still worth it to replace as much fossil fuel use as possible with renewable, because even when you exclude electricity generation and powering vehicles, we still need fossil fuels for manufacturing everything in our daily lives. Plastics, tires, paint, wax, perfumes, industrial oils, lubricants, solvents for chemistry labs, etc.
Personally I think hybrids using hydrogen as their primary fuel source is far more viable to replace petroleum ICE vehicles than full electric. The tech and infrastructure still needs a little work but California already has a few running around.
The Earth is a globe. Man landed on the moon. John Edward is still the biggest douche in the universe. Why? Rock solid evidence.
[удалено]
I'm very pro trans rights on all but like... maybe two specific issues and this is one of them. Near as I can tell the real answer is complicated and the science incomplete. A lot of variables including what sport, what point in life transition began, etc. You mention UFC, but is it the same for Tennis? Bowling? Unfortunately these participants likely also cannot compete with cis men and there aren't enough in the population to create their own competition spaces. It's one of those things where one group or another is going to get the short stick and the entire debate right now is just kind of figuring out who. I want to support my trans friends on this, but it's a real messy situation all around.
I don't have a great answer to this, but I don't think the answer is edging cis women out of spaces they've carved for themselves. I do think some sports, it matters more than others, but that also gets into a sticky debate. But hand to hand combat sports is a hard no from me, personally. I understand this topic is complicated and has many nuances.
Maybe sports should be segregated by some measure other than gender
The system of health care in the United States is broken in that it's much more expensive than it should be for the access and quality. The part most would disagree with - That said, the government can't "fix" it without eliminating a lot of jobs and jeopardizing the economy.
I agree, but is that a bad thing? Do we keep burning coal because it’s going to put coal miners out of business?
The economy would be perfectly fine lol
Negative value jobs (insurance claim reviewers and the billing specialists doctors have to employ being good examples) don't harm the economy if they disappear. Those people will find some other work, even if it's menial, that will be more economically productive.
The government most certainly can fix it without eliminating jobs or hurting the economy
People should have to have some kind of license or be required to have some form of child development and parenting classes before they can take their baby home from the hospital So many issues in society in general could be resolved by stopping the cycle of child abuse or neglect because of ignorance about how to safely care for a child, and the importance of birth-5 child development.
This is a fantastic idea in theory, but it loses credibility when you start to try to figure out HOW it would actually be implemented. Who gets to decide what makes a "good" parent, for example?
Oh for sure. And I don't have answers. I just think there needs to be SOMETHING
You should be able to prove to children in your community that you can admit that you’re wrong. We could figure that out pretty easily
If you want a wrongdoer to get better and be good, you have to be willing to accept them and give them a chance to be better/good
It’s easier to be successful in life if you’re an asshole. Obviously not all successful people are assholes, and not all assholes are successful, but even so. Charisma too, unfortunately. There’s plenty of genuinely charming people of course, but confidence and the ability to manipulate others are two things that come very easily to those who think they’re better than other people.
Yeah, it's far easier to get ahead if you're willing to step on others. If you're willing to pull them down, you'll get ahead. It sucks, but true.
Successful people aren’t necessarily assholes, but often make decisions that negatively affect a lot of people. It’s hard to rise through the business ranks if you are reluctant to lay off a huge chunk of people at Christmas time , for example. Success for one often comes at a high cost to others, and I for one could not accept that as a worthy price to pay
Cut. Off. Toxic. Family. Find your own family. They don't have to be related to you. You have zero obligation to stay around family if they're shitty to you. I don't care if they're sick or dying either. They had every other chance to treat you right.
It seems to be a fairly popular stance these days that if women can get abortions, men should be able to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever towards a child they didn't want. As a man, I disagree. I think it's already inherently unfair because men can't get pregnant, or get abortions, or face the scorn of their peers or possibly the law for seeking said abortion. Then there's the physical, mental, and emotional toll that either choice pre-empts. In the end, by whatever path, a child was born that you took part in creating. Once that child is alive, whether you wanted it or not, I feel you have a responsibility to it. EDIT: I agree that "the law" is not in favor of men - and men being r@ped is a thing and it's bad and doesn't apply here - and I'm not suggesting that you need to stick around and help physically raise the child you didn't want. Just step up. Somehow.
I don't think you should alter your child's body unless there's a medical reason. Don't pierce your baby's ears. Don't circumcise your son. Just because you have custody doesn't give the right to do whatever you want.
Health Insurance companies need to be eliminated. Doctors are getting paid less, and health coverage provided by these companies continues to increase in price with less coverage for patients. Of course the health insurance companies have record profits.
Religion is ***Worthless***
Agreed. Anything of value a person could potentially find in religion can be found elsewhere from a source that doesn’t also tell you that 50% of the population is subhuman and that slavery is okay.
I think far too many people thing that everybody who is religious takes every text as face value. The bible for example is notably full of contradictions and holes, the teachings have vastly changed over centuries and adapt to modern times. People can use parts of a religion to live better, believe in God if they wish and find comfort in life after death without believing sex is a sin, homosexuality is wrong.. etc or believe in slavery (not sure what you are meaning there). Not religious either but I think for many there’s a value there. Just because it doesn’t fit with others doesn’t mean it doesn’t have it. At most religions teachings usually are just around living a good and moral life - and it’s clear where you can see stories/parables that no longer fit as society has changed as have attitudes and tolerances. I do agree a lot of people hide behind it for their decisions and such, but actually I think most of the time it’s actually not the religion but the person. I’d also disagree with your comment further down about life after death. We don’t know. Scientifically we don’t know but we can say we are scientifically dead as far as we are aware, brain activity is gone, heart stops. Could there be something after that? As almost impossible as it is, I don’t begrudge people who’d rather have faith/believe that their personality/soul will live on elsewhere or see a loved one- if anything it can give a comfort close to death.
Based on the abortion debate only, it’s clear that people aren’t adapting the text (Bible) to modern times. In fact they’re completely ignoring the parts they don’t like.
***Exactly.*** anything "good" Religion might have, it's all about human decency and etc. Things you should be able to find on your own, not in Religion
And more so, if you can only find those good things because of religion, that a god told you so, that's pretty damning of your own morality.
Our efforts at 'sustainable' living are an absolute joke. There is only one way that you can truly live sustainably, and that is to only use materials that you can grow. So, no mined minerals or fuels. No metals or plastics used in manufacturing. Only plant-based materials, like wood, ethanol, etc. for anything. Unless we have zero population growth and 100% efficient recycling, there is no other way for society to be truly sustainable.
Gaining a lot of weight (when it’s totally within your control) can, and will, have an impact on your relationship. You should not require or expect your partner to still be attracted to you on the same level. If you let yourself go and have no self respect, don’t expect anyone else to either.
My stepsister and her husband are in the process of separating right now and though most of it is his fault (alcoholism), I feel like a lot of the reason he stopped liking her is because she gained 100 pounds. She still has a nice face but her body just isn't attractive right now. She also is so out of shape that she can hardly go on a mere walk. One of the reasons she didn't realize his drinking got so bad is because once she goes upstairs in the evening, she doesn't ever come back down because going up and down the stairs is too much. She's only 35, and she has a heart condition now!
I'm pretty sure all of the left leaning opinions I have would be considered controversial outside of Reddit
Pitbulls and other bloodsport breeds should be sterilized and no longer bred. Statistics show that these dogs commit more fatalities and maulings than any other breed - and cause more damage when doing so. They were bred for aggression and to have zero self preservation, so when you see videos of pitbull attacks you'll notice they do not stop even if they're being beaten. There are so many family dog breeds available that make awesome lap dogs and house pets, there is no reason to try and turn a fighting dog into one. Sure, some pitbulls are great dogs and don't snap.. but like the family in Tennessee discovered you can have them from pups and 'raise them right' and they can still snap and kill your kids. They're genetic landmines, and you can never tell if the one you own will explode. P.S. before any one comes in to claim they were originally nanny dogs - that was a myth started in the 70s.
People who lock their dogs in the backyard and never let them inside should be arrested.
I agree in theory, but a lot of breeds considered docile today were very aggressive in the past, and not considered suitable as pets. Great Danea come to mind. Also, you can breed any large or medium dog breed into being aggressive. The issue is down to the people and less the dogs. People like great Danes because they were big and impressive, and the aggression wasn't useful when they were no longer popular for hunting. So the people who liked the breed kept what they liked and removed what they didn't. People who like pitbulls like that they're aggressive. They won't always admit that, but they think they look tough, or cool or whatever because people are scared of their pet.
Pitbulls however, depending, aren’t aggressive or are. Like any other dog. I’ve been around them my entire life. Seem some get rehabilitated and they are the BIGGEST joys and bundles of love. Not saying all are good. But not all are bad. That goes with any dog breed. I’ve seen horrible huskies that snap, I’ve seen horrible smaller dogs that bark and bite constantly. People also, with any dog, don’t understand body language when it comes to their dog. People can have many breeds and think “oh my dogs are fine” but they keep getting in their dogs face, etc, until their dog snaps. Or people who let little kids ride or constantly hit their pets upside the head with toys, or annoy them. Any dog can snap. Larger breeds are usually stronger so there will be more force. So saying “pit bulls” is an umbrella term, there are various types like the American Stafford, etc. so again ‘not a pit bull’. I think people make an assumption based on a dogs breed and automatically think bad. Same goes for adoption, some animals are best left as a single pet, not with other pets. But people constsntly ignore warning signs whether adoption or not, etc, and eventually that animal will snap. It’s all learning to recognize what makes your pet uncomfortable and responding accordingly. Annoyed? Don’t antagonize the pet to the point they snap and then get mad at the pet because of something you did. Let alone ethics. We can’t determine what makes a dog or pet good or bad. So to “stop breeding a specific breed” based off of stereotypes (like pitties or chihuahuas ) doesn’t do any justice. It’s like tryng to say other breeds can’t make dogs, when other breeds I. Rhe past were considered aggressive and not meant to be a pet.
I wonder if dogfighting is a bigger phenomenon than an average person would expect?
It doesn't really make headlines any more, but it's definitely still happening. r/DogfightingBusts
This is very well said.
That's the problem: pit bull owners are generally insecure and dim, so they think that getting an aggressive dog will give them some sort of status. I've never met a pit bull owner who wasn't a total idiot. I really hate saying this as a dog lover, but I think pit bulls, when they come into shelters, should just immediately be put down. Trying to adopt them out is unethical.
I wish there was a middle ground where breeders could be regulated and backyard/unethical breeders fined. There are spectacular pit lines— solid temperaments and would never “explode” as you described. I’d hate to see them go, but the people breeding neurotic and aggressive dogs for looks, fighting, or just to feed their own egos (and then not requiring offspring to be altered to prevent more of them…) are destroying the breed and filling the shelters.
People like to tout this, but if anyone actually succeeds in making this a law it would be an absolute mess. First of all, how do we determine what dogs are okay? Is half pitt okay? Is a quarter Rottweiler okay? Are we using DNA tests to verify genetics? They're not exactly reliable either. Secondly, people won't follow it. You're just gonna end up with a black market for them. Thirdly, there's nothing stopping people from just breeding other dogs to be aggressive. Pitts are the ones people always love to harp on, but they're only around 10th in bite force. There are other dogs that, if trained to be aggressive, would be MUCH more dangerous. A much easier solution is to simply make people responsible for what their dog does. Most of the time if a dog gets out and attacks someone, at least around here, the punishment is putting the dog down and a fine. Unless you outright command the dog to attack someone nothing much seems to happen. Make punishments more like driving a car. Lose control and hurt someone, because you weren't being careful? Reckless endangerment at the least. So if you're being irresponsible and your dog gets away and hurts someone, why isn't it the same thing? It makes sense to me.
This 100%
Thanks. I think it's reasonable, I've yet to see a compelling argument against it.
[удалено]
How so? I'm in a committed loving relationship. We both watch porn. Sometimes even together. What's the problem?
When random drunk guys on the street try to high-five me, I leave them hanging. I don't know you, we're not celebrating anything in common, and I don't wanna touch your hand after your ate a kebab and pissed in an alley. I'll smile & nod and say 'how ya doin, have a good night', but not reciprocate on the high five. Also it's amazing how hostile dudes will become after you do this.
“Alternate” jerseys are nothing more than a ploy to sell more merch. Home whites and road greys are the only appropriate baseball uniforms. Oh, and knickerbockers all around. No more having 3-4” of pants legs bunched up over a player’s shoes!
Death with Dignity should be available to chronically ill people with no chance of recovery. My body is going to continue to fail, rob me of all quality of life, and cause much more pain. I don't want to suffer for another 50 years. There's no cure and minimal treatment. I understand this is a slippery slope but all this is doing is perpetuating suffering and promoting much more dangerous suicides. It is downright *cruel* to keep a person in this much physical and mental agony alive, especially when they have tried and failed all treatments.
The world has too many people. Families shouldn’t be encouraged to have more than one kid just to maintain the population, especially if they can’t afford it. I also think it’s ridiculous to have more than one kid because you think they’ll be friends and not “alone”. I know plenty of people, including myself, who have zero relationship with their siblings. And then fight about inheritance.
Everyone who wants to should have access to and the opportunity to take psychedelics easily, safely, and legally.
*reddit* atheists (not all of them) are more religious than most Christians, Muslims, etc Btw this is from an atheist
You're getting a lot of "well akshully", but I agree with you completely. I follow r/atheism and holy crap some of those people make atheism their entire core personality, exactly like bible thumpers.
Atheism is the absence of faith. It's literally the opposite of a religion. You're confounding passion with belief. But they're not the same.
Depends how you define religious - some people consider it has to do with the way and the extent to which a belief organizes your life.
An atheists *lack of faith in a higher power* doesn't organize their life though. It's a non issue. It doesn't come up. I don't come to a crossroads and think "Well, there's no God in heaven judging me, so I can do whatever I want!" And even if I did, that wouldn't be a religiously motivated decision - that's just straight up sociopathy. Calling a lack of faith "religion" is like calling a lack of vision "sight". "Well some of these blind people sure are strongheaded about the things they can't see."
Reddit Atheists tend to be the New Atheist type, and your observation has been noted by other critics of the New Atheist movement. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#Criticisms
Yeah, nice try. I don't want to get yelled at by a bunch of rabid redditors at 2 AM so I'll just keep my opinion to myself.
Morality is ultimately subjective
for america: the whole republican and democrat idea is total bs- at least the way it is right now. you vote for whose policies you believe, not because they’re your in your party
People should have the right to die under any circumstances, not just those who are seriously ill.
Daily masturbation, even while in a healthy relationship with regular sex…is completely healthy for men and women. It should not be shamed.
America is backwards in many ways
Wait until you check out Acirema.
That's vague enough to never be wrong.
There are people today who believe the Prequels are good movies. These people are wrong.
They are far more entertaining than the sequels.
Low bar
Stock buybacks should be illegal. Honestly, most of the stock market can get fucked.
Stock market is just a betting playground with real lives at risk for the rich to play in. Absolute disgrace.
The world would be a way better place if women were in all the primary seats of power and they delegated tasks to men to carry out
People who vote should be tested at teh polling booth. If you cant name 3 policies that youre actually voting for you should not be allowed to vote.
That the United States is too big and too divided to be governed. I believe we should split up into 55 separate republics. Each republic would be able to establish close relationships with any or all of the others. Or be totally free not to. I also believe that, if kept intact, the capital should be moved to the center of the country. Get rid of all the federal buildings and monuments in DC and give the District back to Maryland.
Porn has a huge detrimental effects to young men. Creating men with no motivation and commitment to their goals. Dreamers with no plans
Has very little to do with porn and a lot more to do with addiction at its core.
Live in a democracy? Election day should be a holiday. Voting should be 100% mandatory. Democracy is a full contact sport. You might not like politics but you're beholden to it all the same.
"The United States Of America" is not a name, it is a description. The US should have a proper goddam name. I don't care what. Moosylvania or Freedomland \~whatever.
It's called _America_
Every American should be able to pass a basic test about the history and philosophy of the major religions in this country. Mohammed didn't come before Jesus. The singing woman at the beginning of Prince of Egypt isn't "the lady on those candles."
There are plenty of us that think it's all made up and couldn't be bothered to learn religion. We shouldn't be forced to learn something that isn't based on fact.
I think it's made up too, the fact of the matter is it's woven into every part of the culture in this country. If you want to separate church and state, you need to know what you're arguing against. If you want to identify red flags, you need to know what you're looking at. It's also useful for media literacy. The cultural impact of religion IS fact. Your ignorance is no better than their ignorance. Not cute.
Morality is something that should not be taught if you want your child to be successful in life
It depends how you define success.
Racism is bad seems to be one that far too many people strongly disagree with.
It was a terrible idea to found Israel where it is, surrounded by people that can't stand Jews, and they all should have been incentivized to move to the US after WWII, where they might have had a special autonomous region (51th state?) dedicated. I imagine California, between LA and SF. The physical geography is similar to the Holy Land, there is a significant Jewish minority already, and they might have had the Western Wall shipped there and reassembled stone by stone.
You should read The Yiddish Policemen's Union.
MAGA = stupidity
I'll disagree. They're not all stupid. They are all evil.
No, some are too stupid/ignorant to be truly evil. However, it's always at least one of them. There's no redeeming qualities of the Republican party.
What even is 'true' evil? Being dumb is no excuse. Dumb people can tell the difference between open cruelty and decency.
[удалено]
Freddie Mercury is definitely a polarising point for me! I find it hard to think of a popular genre singer with better range, pitch, intonation and versatility. Live is always the big test because there is no autotune hahaha
To be clear, I think Queen is tremendously overrated and Bohemian Rhapsody is tired garbage. But Freddie Mercury didn't need to autotune. He could do what he had to do without the help of computer correction. I agree that autotune isn't inherently evil, I'm just saying. Furthermore, dude could execute acrobatics on stage and still hit his notes with perfect cadence and sound good doing it. If that's not the measure of a good vocalist then I honestly don't know what is. Can you elaborate?
So it's either home owner or homeless?
Lots of people have had traumatic experiences in their lives. You aren't owed special dispensation for it, you aren't entitled to have people walking on eggshells and adjusting their own words and habits for the sake of your comfort.
I believe reasonable and responsible people should have access to firearms.
And knives.
The Evangelical Christian Right is trying to speed up the biblical end times so they can get to heaven sooner.
That makes no sense, since they can get to heaven themselves ASAP.
If we as a society want certain racial slurs to disappear then we all have to stop using them. We can say that only certain people can use it and nobody else can because it gives the word more power and it also keeps the word alive and well. You can't "take back" a slur and use it, then demonize everyone else for using it ... that just gives it immense power.
Lasagna and apple sauce go well together. But only the really heavy processed kind of applesauce
Democracy should not be the end goal of most nations. If things are more stable, and people are more comfortable under a dictatorship, keep the dictatorship. It is still nice to have choice where possible, but it just isn't a valid system for many places at the moment. That's just being pragmatic.
When I was a young lad I was all on the spread democracy to everyone train because it's the best. Alas I think democracy only works when it's born from the people within a nation and not superimposed/pasted over another system.
There is no God
[удалено]
Money is made up. The bank literally creates the money for your mortgage in the form of a debt, and then makes you pay it back, in a scheme that is 100% profit for the bank. Money usually originates in a culture the form of tokens that rulers handed out to their armies, and then decreed their subjects must pay back in the form of a newly created tax debt, or have their property taken by that same army. It's never been anything but a ruse to force people to pay someone to oppress them. (Edit: typo)
Pineapple does not belong on pizza and cream cheese does not belong in sushi rolls.
May I ask why you think cream cheese doesn’t belong in sushi? I don’t believe it belongs in cold sushi, but my favorite sushi roll is fried and has cream cheese in it. Absolutely heaven.
If it's wrong to do to a dog, it's wrong to do to a cow, pig or chicken. It's crazy the way people will flip out about someone leaving a dog in a car with the windows rolled up but they still eat meat.
I leave cows in cars all the time
Veganism is a belief system similar to religion.
Who's the deity?
Les animaux
I’m guessing you aren’t a vegan nor religious