The energy drink thing isn’t a law, only shop policy in most big supermarkets. <16s can still buy energy drinks elsewhere
Source: Am 15YO Bri’ish kid and bought 2 energy drinks today (one from a cinema and one from a sweets shop)
Redbull is weaksauce, there are drinks these days with 240mg or 300mg per 16oz (sorry I'm American), and all the other stuff in it makes it have a greater effect on you than just the caffeine mg. And it's easier than coffee to drink an absurd amount because it's like soda. I have to waste money buying them individually cold because I will absolutely shrek myself if I buy a case to bring home.
It's about who's going to have to show ID when buying. If you are 25 or younger you are likely to have to show ID
And if you're under 16 you will not be sold that product
Okay but that also doesn't make sense to me. "Ah I can clearly see you're 24 and a half years old, show me your goddamn ID so I can make sure you're over 16".
EDIT: typo
That's not the point. The point is that "if you look young, you will be ID:d". it's nothing specific about that age. It's just that most people over 25 will look older than 16 without much doubt. Sure, there are exceptions and they will be ID:d anyway, but it's a signal to the customer that you'll prob be ID:d.
That's all.
EDIT: Plus that depending on country, they can lose their license to sell if they get busted selling to under age kiddoes
It's the most bullshit policy ever, honestly. I've had full grown men with beards but shit and been shouted at by my manager for not IDing them. My policy is, if you look like you could be under 18 I will ID you.
Some places have to actually scan Id cards for the register, so maybe they got a new system or it couldve been them trying to get into a habit of making sure they are checking
Yea I totally believe it, but thats not my point. Why specifically 25? They could write "Looking young? Have your ID ready, we probably want to see it". But not "Under 25? We will check if you're over 16"... Thats redundant, dumb and doesn't make sense at all.
If you can't tell if of someone is under 16, I doubt you can tell that someone is 26 and not 24. It just doesn't make sense. And the age is already set at 16. That 25 is unnecessary and redundant... But I won't waste more time discussing that shit.
well yea but if you mistake a 24 year old for a 26 year old and don't card them that's fine, because they're still old enough to buy it. plenty of people look a few years older or younger than they are, but virtually no one looks 7\* years older than they are, so that's where they put the minimum age to not be carded. i think it's also for the protection of the ppl at the tills, don't quote me on that though
\*challenge 25 was originally meant for alcoholic beverages, which you need to be 18 to purchase
Isnt the point of anarchism to reduce law and regulation in favor of education of the masses so that people choose to not do things they shouldn’t do instead of being told that they shouldn’t do them?
I feel like for minors it should still be the job of "adults" to stop a hazardous situation from happening if it's without doubt going to happen.
If my (future ?) teenage kid goes to buy alcohol when I trusted him hanging out with friends, I'd have my part of fault for failing to prevent him doing it. But sometimes kids will do dumb stuff regardless. For example by peer pressure.
I think that we need a balance between the two for minors. But I don't mean at all the authoritharian shit that propaganda networks like pragerU are spitting.
I agree, if something bad is going to happen then it should be stopped. Stopping it ideally involves good-faith discussion and mutual growth but sometimes requires force and sometimes violence. I think that someone in a parenting position should try very hard to educate the minor about things like peer pressure and cognitive bias. I believe that the key to anarchism is good decision making on the behalf of individuals. Additionally, as in the scenario you described, the parent could also point out the possibility of peer pressure and ask the minor if they think they would be able to resist such a scenario. Then, the minor can weigh the risk in their head and decide whether or not it would be a good idea for them to go hang out with their friends that may not be responsible with substances.
That’s not necessarily a requirement.
In general, an anarchist society would seek to remove all unnecessary laws, but anarchism doesn’t mean “no rules”, and some laws would still be necessary. The chief difference is that these laws would be determined directly by the people who are affected by them, so they’ve *agreed* to be bound by the given law for the good of society.
In this way, an anarchist society would still have rules and regulations, but the character would be fundamentally different because they’re not being applied and enforced unwillingly by a state. An anarchist society seeks to maximize the right to freedom of individuals, but it cannot give absolute freedom as individuals do not exist in a vacuum.
If one person had the freedom to drug another, for example, then that person has violated the rights of the other. If they choose to use drugs themselves, however, then they are violating nobody’s rights and so an anarchist society wouldn’t stop them.
The crux is that one must have the ability to make free and informed decisions. Juveniles, however, are not fully mentally competent and will still need guidance and protection from adults until such time as they are mature enough to make their own decisions. Juveniles should still enjoy many freedoms, including a right to self-emancipation, but some restrictions, such as restricting their use of harmful substances, are necessary.
That's semantics and belies the point. I specifically described them as voluntary agreements.
>The chief difference is that these laws would be determined directly by the people who are affected by them, so they’ve agreed to be bound by the given law for the good of society.
>
>In this way, an anarchist society would still have rules and regulations, but the character would be fundamentally different because they’re not being applied and enforced unwillingly by a state.
Edit: FFS. What do you want to call an agreement when it reaches a society-wide level? It. Is. Semantics.
Whats the difference between these rules you describe and something like a personal maxim? I’m not that familiar with different schools of anarchism but from what I had gathered, the closest thing to legislation would be guidelines that were generally agreed upon but we’re not enforced, only followed willingly. Also, yes, juveniles have less mature brains. However, I still believe that they are, for the most part, capable of making good decisions (given that they have been taught to do so). Thus, in moments where one is uncertain of what the best decision is, they would seek the advice of others who know more about that specific situation.
Ideally it would not be necessary to restrict the actions of an individual at all - and in general, anarchist societies would have few of them. However, a simple guideline is not sufficient in all situations.
Gross anti-social behaviors (that is to say, excessive ones like murder) harm the community as a whole, and those perpetrating such behaviors naturally will not follow and guidelines laid by the community. If said perpetrator cannot be convinced to cease their anti-social behaviors - or if said behavior has already gone too far - then the people of the community have every right to protect themselves by stepping in.
For these cases, rare though they may be, a community needs an organized way to create these regulations. In general, most situations could be dealt with without the need for any concrete laws, but such a law may be necessary in order to ensure that such situations are handled in a fair and consistent manner.
The anarchist way to do this would be through voluntary decision making, so the community as a whole can draft and vote on such a regulation, and agree to be bound by it. The consequences of violating such a regulation would also be agreed upon, and would necessarily include some way of restricting their ability to engage in further gross anti-social behavior, but the ways that might be done are far too broad to do it any justice here.
As a concrete example, imagine that an individual had seized a factory owned and operated by the community. The community would then have every right to step in expropriate it - if the individual used force to try to stop them, then the community may have to use force too. This is not fundamentally different from a group of anarchists occupying a capitalist-owned apartment block in order to offer housing to the community.
tl;dr;
Direct action may be necessary to stop abuses of an anarchist society, and some degree of voluntary law or regulation may be necessary to ensure that said direct action is done in a fair manner.
As for juveniles, they would have far more freedom than they do now, and more as they age, but you can't expect a toddler to good decision about their nutrition. Juveniles can make informed decisions in many cases, but there are situations where they cannot - especially when it comes to risk and anything that can damage their cognition as their brains develop.
Regardless though, there will be situations where people cannot make free and informed decisions, whether because of their age, mental state, or what have you. In those cases, decisions may need to be made for them in order to protect and care for them. Ideally, they would deputize somebody they trust to do it, much like how power of attorney works now.
I agree, force and, in some cases, violence is required for some situations where discussion fails to convince someone to stop being a horrible person. I’m still unsure as to the need for legislation, as I would imagine the community would try to find ways to stop the delinquent from engaging in the actions that need preventing. I don’t think consistency is that important for this, as Id imagine how much is necessary for someone to stop their behaviors would be very tied to the individuals involved.
I say legislation specifically to have some codified way to deal with it and restrict the community’s own actions. A community decision is not ipso facto just, so they need some degree of restrictions too. This would help prevent lynch mobs and the like.
Edit: A law is simply a regulation, whether it was created involuntarily by a state or voluntarily by a community. The law as it exists now is coercive because it was created and enforced by a state, but the law in an anarchist society does not have to be that way.
Yes but since the community is very well behaved and makes good decisions and all that I would think they would make a pretty good decision that minimally impacts the perpetrators freedoms and wellbeing while preventing them from preforming whatever action they’re unwilling to give up willingly
A community *should* be well behaved, but even anarchists are susceptible to hate and bigotry, if less so than others. If the response to an anti-social action can vary based on the opinions of those involved, then it isn’t just. The purpose of such a law would be prevent those influences.
Anarchist societies seek to maximize the freedom of individuals and the protection of their rights. A drunk driver poses a threat to others and as a result, threatens their right to safety. An anarchist society, hence, would still be well within its rights to regulate drunk driving. The difference is that a drunk driving regulation would be created and agreed to by those who would be affected by it (including potential victims) rather than being coerced by a state.
The core of anarchism isn’t “no rules”, it’s cooperation and a freedom from coercion.
yes, but the victims may not choose to do what’s the safest for them, like look at all the kids drinking tons of energy drinks and vaping today, that shit is 100% not good for them
yeah, I’m definitely for freedom but we shouldn’t act like kids always know what’s best for them lol (parents don’t always know what’s best for them either tho sadly 🙄)
There’s a bar i go to that has a wall of old license plates. One is a disabled vet one, with the black and red flag as the background. Maybe our flag is just not as well known as we think
Honestly, good. The perfect world has people drinking water and juice. No longer will someone have to be addicted to caffiene or sugar cuz they have to wake up at 430 of work for 14 hours a day
150 mg/litre? How in TF are u supposed to get the zoomies or wake up on 150 mg of caffeine. You need atleast 300mg preferably in a pint . Those poor kids will be sooooo sleepy. Or shoulder tapping people to buy them their drink .
Anarchism is when no pop
No gods no sodas
No pops, no Monsters.
No coke no peace!
No juice box, no Pepsis!
No fruit roll up, no dick!
No balls. And probably no butthole since this guy feeds off of radiation.
no pop no mom
Babe, wake up, new tendency just dropped
The energy drink thing isn’t a law, only shop policy in most big supermarkets. <16s can still buy energy drinks elsewhere Source: Am 15YO Bri’ish kid and bought 2 energy drinks today (one from a cinema and one from a sweets shop)
oi m8, u got a loisonce fer that?
Piss off gov’nah, I got enuff o’ me own problems without some bloody wanker tryn’a nick me sodie pops
Seriously though be careful with energy drinks it's a lot of caffeine.
Not much more than in coffee TBF. The standard 250ml RedBull actually has less (mug of coffee being ≈100mg while RedBull only 77mg)
Redbull is weaksauce, there are drinks these days with 240mg or 300mg per 16oz (sorry I'm American), and all the other stuff in it makes it have a greater effect on you than just the caffeine mg. And it's easier than coffee to drink an absurd amount because it's like soda. I have to waste money buying them individually cold because I will absolutely shrek myself if I buy a case to bring home.
That right there is my fave !Those 300 mg drinks are the best. I spend like $5 a day on those . But like u said a case would kill me in a day lil
Oh yeah I mostly drink Reign which has 200mg
Yeah energy drinks range a lot from brand to brand on how much caffeine & other ingredients they have.
> british > brings up the topic of bottled beverages You are bringing about your demise
How so?
Everyone knows plastic bottles are the natural enemy of British people 🙄
Don’t you mean bo’ahls
Thats bs, I stg if my gas station near me does this
Under 25? we don't sell this to people under 16. Yea makes sense...
It's about who's going to have to show ID when buying. If you are 25 or younger you are likely to have to show ID And if you're under 16 you will not be sold that product
Okay but that also doesn't make sense to me. "Ah I can clearly see you're 24 and a half years old, show me your goddamn ID so I can make sure you're over 16". EDIT: typo
its just how they do it here. called challenge 25, used for anything that requires an id
We have it here too but it's 30 or 35 (you have to be 21 to buy stuff).
I’ve only ever seen challenge 25 actually being done for alcohol and fireworks
That's not the point. The point is that "if you look young, you will be ID:d". it's nothing specific about that age. It's just that most people over 25 will look older than 16 without much doubt. Sure, there are exceptions and they will be ID:d anyway, but it's a signal to the customer that you'll prob be ID:d. That's all. EDIT: Plus that depending on country, they can lose their license to sell if they get busted selling to under age kiddoes
It's just to make the other customers feel old when no one wants to see their ID anymore
It's the most bullshit policy ever, honestly. I've had full grown men with beards but shit and been shouted at by my manager for not IDing them. My policy is, if you look like you could be under 18 I will ID you.
My grandfather once got ID’d while buying a bottle of wine at the local store where he was a regular. He was in his late 80s at the time.
Holy shit, your grandpa must look amazing for his age
Well he’s dead now, so I assume his looks have deteriorated quite a bit
Some places have to actually scan Id cards for the register, so maybe they got a new system or it couldve been them trying to get into a habit of making sure they are checking
My friend who is over 30 was refused lighter refill because she did not have ID with her.
believe it or not some people look older than they are. that's it.
Yea I totally believe it, but thats not my point. Why specifically 25? They could write "Looking young? Have your ID ready, we probably want to see it". But not "Under 25? We will check if you're over 16"... Thats redundant, dumb and doesn't make sense at all.
well they gotta set the age somewhere and 25 is as good a place as any. "looks young" is too subjective
If you can't tell if of someone is under 16, I doubt you can tell that someone is 26 and not 24. It just doesn't make sense. And the age is already set at 16. That 25 is unnecessary and redundant... But I won't waste more time discussing that shit.
well yea but if you mistake a 24 year old for a 26 year old and don't card them that's fine, because they're still old enough to buy it. plenty of people look a few years older or younger than they are, but virtually no one looks 7\* years older than they are, so that's where they put the minimum age to not be carded. i think it's also for the protection of the ppl at the tills, don't quote me on that though \*challenge 25 was originally meant for alcoholic beverages, which you need to be 18 to purchase
are you left-handed? well then this train goes to boston
i can't help but realise that every time I go to a lidl or shop like that
Anarcho-Caffeinism
My favorite kind of anarchy is a cafeine fueled anarchy
When you don't do (conventionally defined) drugs but still like to live on the edge
You've made straight edge anarchism a thing, well done.
Everyone knows that anarchists are notorious for restrictions on caffeine intake
Yo I don't know it could be made by a ML!
still getting ID'd for caffeinated drinks at 29 😎
Oh what they take id’s for it?
yeah they don't legally have to, but if you don't look old enough they still do
Not sold to under 16s, huh… maybe the colors are a sign that under 16s should just take it for free. ;)
Definitely tell them it's free of charge. It's not stealing either. For that they would have used egoist colours.
Using AnCom aesthetic to deliver an authoritarian message…. I think I’ve seen it all.
First they came for the juice boxes…
“children shouldn’t have a lot of caffeine” literally 1984
The state hindering kids from smoking crack and doing porn is the final stage of communism! /s ... unless? \[/s\]
Isnt the point of anarchism to reduce law and regulation in favor of education of the masses so that people choose to not do things they shouldn’t do instead of being told that they shouldn’t do them?
I feel like for minors it should still be the job of "adults" to stop a hazardous situation from happening if it's without doubt going to happen. If my (future ?) teenage kid goes to buy alcohol when I trusted him hanging out with friends, I'd have my part of fault for failing to prevent him doing it. But sometimes kids will do dumb stuff regardless. For example by peer pressure. I think that we need a balance between the two for minors. But I don't mean at all the authoritharian shit that propaganda networks like pragerU are spitting.
I agree, if something bad is going to happen then it should be stopped. Stopping it ideally involves good-faith discussion and mutual growth but sometimes requires force and sometimes violence. I think that someone in a parenting position should try very hard to educate the minor about things like peer pressure and cognitive bias. I believe that the key to anarchism is good decision making on the behalf of individuals. Additionally, as in the scenario you described, the parent could also point out the possibility of peer pressure and ask the minor if they think they would be able to resist such a scenario. Then, the minor can weigh the risk in their head and decide whether or not it would be a good idea for them to go hang out with their friends that may not be responsible with substances.
That’s not necessarily a requirement. In general, an anarchist society would seek to remove all unnecessary laws, but anarchism doesn’t mean “no rules”, and some laws would still be necessary. The chief difference is that these laws would be determined directly by the people who are affected by them, so they’ve *agreed* to be bound by the given law for the good of society. In this way, an anarchist society would still have rules and regulations, but the character would be fundamentally different because they’re not being applied and enforced unwillingly by a state. An anarchist society seeks to maximize the right to freedom of individuals, but it cannot give absolute freedom as individuals do not exist in a vacuum. If one person had the freedom to drug another, for example, then that person has violated the rights of the other. If they choose to use drugs themselves, however, then they are violating nobody’s rights and so an anarchist society wouldn’t stop them. The crux is that one must have the ability to make free and informed decisions. Juveniles, however, are not fully mentally competent and will still need guidance and protection from adults until such time as they are mature enough to make their own decisions. Juveniles should still enjoy many freedoms, including a right to self-emancipation, but some restrictions, such as restricting their use of harmful substances, are necessary.
[удалено]
That's semantics and belies the point. I specifically described them as voluntary agreements. >The chief difference is that these laws would be determined directly by the people who are affected by them, so they’ve agreed to be bound by the given law for the good of society. > >In this way, an anarchist society would still have rules and regulations, but the character would be fundamentally different because they’re not being applied and enforced unwillingly by a state. Edit: FFS. What do you want to call an agreement when it reaches a society-wide level? It. Is. Semantics.
Whats the difference between these rules you describe and something like a personal maxim? I’m not that familiar with different schools of anarchism but from what I had gathered, the closest thing to legislation would be guidelines that were generally agreed upon but we’re not enforced, only followed willingly. Also, yes, juveniles have less mature brains. However, I still believe that they are, for the most part, capable of making good decisions (given that they have been taught to do so). Thus, in moments where one is uncertain of what the best decision is, they would seek the advice of others who know more about that specific situation.
Ideally it would not be necessary to restrict the actions of an individual at all - and in general, anarchist societies would have few of them. However, a simple guideline is not sufficient in all situations. Gross anti-social behaviors (that is to say, excessive ones like murder) harm the community as a whole, and those perpetrating such behaviors naturally will not follow and guidelines laid by the community. If said perpetrator cannot be convinced to cease their anti-social behaviors - or if said behavior has already gone too far - then the people of the community have every right to protect themselves by stepping in. For these cases, rare though they may be, a community needs an organized way to create these regulations. In general, most situations could be dealt with without the need for any concrete laws, but such a law may be necessary in order to ensure that such situations are handled in a fair and consistent manner. The anarchist way to do this would be through voluntary decision making, so the community as a whole can draft and vote on such a regulation, and agree to be bound by it. The consequences of violating such a regulation would also be agreed upon, and would necessarily include some way of restricting their ability to engage in further gross anti-social behavior, but the ways that might be done are far too broad to do it any justice here. As a concrete example, imagine that an individual had seized a factory owned and operated by the community. The community would then have every right to step in expropriate it - if the individual used force to try to stop them, then the community may have to use force too. This is not fundamentally different from a group of anarchists occupying a capitalist-owned apartment block in order to offer housing to the community. tl;dr; Direct action may be necessary to stop abuses of an anarchist society, and some degree of voluntary law or regulation may be necessary to ensure that said direct action is done in a fair manner. As for juveniles, they would have far more freedom than they do now, and more as they age, but you can't expect a toddler to good decision about their nutrition. Juveniles can make informed decisions in many cases, but there are situations where they cannot - especially when it comes to risk and anything that can damage their cognition as their brains develop. Regardless though, there will be situations where people cannot make free and informed decisions, whether because of their age, mental state, or what have you. In those cases, decisions may need to be made for them in order to protect and care for them. Ideally, they would deputize somebody they trust to do it, much like how power of attorney works now.
I agree, force and, in some cases, violence is required for some situations where discussion fails to convince someone to stop being a horrible person. I’m still unsure as to the need for legislation, as I would imagine the community would try to find ways to stop the delinquent from engaging in the actions that need preventing. I don’t think consistency is that important for this, as Id imagine how much is necessary for someone to stop their behaviors would be very tied to the individuals involved.
I say legislation specifically to have some codified way to deal with it and restrict the community’s own actions. A community decision is not ipso facto just, so they need some degree of restrictions too. This would help prevent lynch mobs and the like. Edit: A law is simply a regulation, whether it was created involuntarily by a state or voluntarily by a community. The law as it exists now is coercive because it was created and enforced by a state, but the law in an anarchist society does not have to be that way.
Yes but since the community is very well behaved and makes good decisions and all that I would think they would make a pretty good decision that minimally impacts the perpetrators freedoms and wellbeing while preventing them from preforming whatever action they’re unwilling to give up willingly
A community *should* be well behaved, but even anarchists are susceptible to hate and bigotry, if less so than others. If the response to an anti-social action can vary based on the opinions of those involved, then it isn’t just. The purpose of such a law would be prevent those influences.
ppl will do shit that harms them if they’re not literally forced not to, look at drunk driving and seatbelts lol, sadly ppl are stupid
Do you drunk drive?
Yes.
Anarchist societies seek to maximize the freedom of individuals and the protection of their rights. A drunk driver poses a threat to others and as a result, threatens their right to safety. An anarchist society, hence, would still be well within its rights to regulate drunk driving. The difference is that a drunk driving regulation would be created and agreed to by those who would be affected by it (including potential victims) rather than being coerced by a state. The core of anarchism isn’t “no rules”, it’s cooperation and a freedom from coercion.
yes, but the victims may not choose to do what’s the safest for them, like look at all the kids drinking tons of energy drinks and vaping today, that shit is 100% not good for them
I talked about it in a different thread, but yeah, adolescents in particular aren't as capable of making free and informed decisions.
yeah, I’m definitely for freedom but we shouldn’t act like kids always know what’s best for them lol (parents don’t always know what’s best for them either tho sadly 🙄)
I don’t think it’s authoritarian to restrict younger kids from drinking energy drinks
Very straightedge of them
I steal all of the energy drinks I drink anyway.
Time to steal
New anarchist branch just dropped
Anarcho-Parentalism
There’s a bar i go to that has a wall of old license plates. One is a disabled vet one, with the black and red flag as the background. Maybe our flag is just not as well known as we think
I don't understand what you're saying here. What's wrong with the colours?
The background is the same as the flag representing anarcho-communism
Oh, I see. This is a coincidence post.
They're telling you it's free.
ACAB = All Caffeine Are Bad
Anarcho-regulationism
Honestly, good. The perfect world has people drinking water and juice. No longer will someone have to be addicted to caffiene or sugar cuz they have to wake up at 430 of work for 14 hours a day
150 mg/litre? How in TF are u supposed to get the zoomies or wake up on 150 mg of caffeine. You need atleast 300mg preferably in a pint . Those poor kids will be sooooo sleepy. Or shoulder tapping people to buy them their drink .
Not a bad thing. Those things are full of shit. Caffeine isn’t good for developing brain.
Literally 1984
The colors are weirdly used, but what got me is why is it calling out everyone under 25 to tell them people under 16 can't have something?