Disclaimer: I do think it’s a good thing to fight for fairness and justice. But if we completely succeeded I think it would be a nightmare.

There would be no place for parents and families, for one thing, since not everyone in our world is lucky enough to have a loving family, so nobody could in a fair world.

Life’s losers would be totally abandoned and even more scorned than they are now, because everyone would know for sure they had no excuse.

There would be no Michael Jordans for people to aspire to.

There would only be two stories: “person worked hard and succeeded” and “person was lazy and failed”. No great tales of people beating the odds.

I’m thankful that luck exists in our world.

People make a big deal about the fact that many ancient cultures built pyramids. But the obvious reason is that if you want to build a large, tall stone structure, the most stable shape is a pyramid. People just figured that's why almost all really tall structures in ancient times, hundreds of feet tall, are pyramids or pyramidal in shape, like the Sumerian ziggurats or the Egyptian pyramids. The only exception is the Pharos of Alexandria, which is Greek for lighthouse; it was one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Especially since, even though the pyramid has its little chambers, like 95 percent of the total volume is solid rock. It can't collapse on itself because there is nothing for it to collapse; you just pile the rocks on top of each other—it's basically a man-made hill.

Even the Egyptians, after Giza, stopped building such large pyramids and started focusing on large temple complexes, which had columns and beams that were religious. But at least they had usable space to them. Egyptians had to use a lot of interior columns because they had not perfected the arch or dome. I always felt that one of the reasons the Egyptians stopped building them is because they realized it was a huge waste of resources and didn't make much economic sense in the long run.

I would argue that, for example, the Parthenon in Greece, which is a religious building, but the Greeks used post-lintel construction, and it had columns and usable space, is architecturally more advanced than building a pyramid. The pyramid is just bigger, but it was built around 447 BC compared to the Giza pyramids in 2500 BC. I would also argue from a technological standpoint, the aqueducts, which were first built around 312 BC, that the Romans built with their arches, while not as big as the Great Pyramid, from a technical perspective, they were more advanced. Yet, nobody says that we couldn't do it today or that aliens did it. For example, the Egyptians, at the time the pyramids were built, couldn't make a keystone arch.

Another example is the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which was a structure that the Greeks built in Egypt. In my opinion, it was also more advanced. How is a pyramid more advanced than a lighthouse? The lighthouse was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, just like the Great Pyramid. It was a big deal because it was the first structure that was considerably tall, hundreds of feet tall, that was not a pyramid. Unlike the pyramid, the lighthouse had windows, floors, and tiers. And at the top, there was a furnace that lit at night, and in the day, a system of mirrors was used to reflect the sunlight. The light from the lighthouse was said to be visible from 25 miles out to sea or so. It was designed by the Greek architect Sostratus of Cnidus. It was a practical and functional structure. Its name comes from the island where it was built, which was called Pharos. Basically, the Greeks built this giant lighthouse over time, and the name of the island, Pharos, became associated with the structure, and the word "pharos" became the basis for the word "lighthouse" in different languages around the world. The lighthouse is believed to have been around 100 to 130 meters in height, with the only known taller structure being the Great Pyramid at 146.6 meters."

Sex is an incredibly vulnerable act, i dont agree with how people say its a normal part of life, yeah it is for animals and creatures in the wild, for humans its incredible emotional and has a heavy weight attached to it, and i do believe once you have sex with someone you are connected to them in some way mentally for the rest of your life, that is not fair to your future life partner, like i can not imagine ever moving on from someone thats has seen me in such a vulnerable, state and given me thats kind of pleasure, i dont agree with "you need to be experienced, see whats out there", experience and getting better is something you can do with one person, i could elaborate more but i hope you get my point, please show me a different perspective.

edit:- i dont mean to say that you need to wait till marriage, but wait till you find the right person, if things dont work out with them then thats okay, life happens, but actively seeking out more sex with different partners shouldnt be the norm

Yeah I said it I 100% believe Injustice Superman should get a redemption arc whenever the next Injustice game or comic comes out. When I look at Injustice Superman I find rather to a victim of the whole thing and he got fucked over hard, by everything. Personally I feel bad for the guy despite of all the horrible things he's done and I don't defend his bad actions at all but I'm going to explain why I believe he deserves redemption lets begin.

First lets start of with the tragedy Injustice Superman's wife Lois Lane was kidnapped by Joker and Harley Quinn. The two clowns then performed a surgery where they placed a small timer in her heart linked with a nuclear bomb that was located in Metropolis. If Lois heart stopped beating the nuke would go off, and later Superman finds her but got intoxicated with fear gas by the Joker and Harley and Superman saw Lois as Doomsday. So Superman sends Lois up into space orbit which gets Lois killed. Once the fear gas rules off Superman sees Lois Lane and since she's dead the Nuke in Metropolis goes off. The full causalities of the nuke going off in metropolis was 11 million people, Harley Quinn and Joker killed over ten million people. Imagine being in Superman's shoes you have just been intoxicated by the Joker and Harley Quinn seeing your wife as Doomsday. You take her up to space and then you realise, your wife isn't the monster and you just killed her then two evil murders nuke your city killing pretty much everyone. All of that would make anyone go drastic to ensure something like that never happens again furthermore it's been proven PTSD can fuck up people for the worst.

Secondly lets talk about Injustice Harley Quinn because she is very controversial as she is a perpetrator of kick starting the series. Injustice Harley Quinn aided the Joker kidnapping Lois Lane, placing the timer in her heart and setting the nuke to go off. Yet despite being a catalyst for everything in Injustice happening, Injustice Batman and his insurgency takes her under their wing and she goes through a whole bullshit redemption arc. To make it worse Injustice Harley Quinn never took responsibility or accountability for her actions in one comic run she even says Superman was supposed to stop them and save the day, which just sounds disgusting. People also love to complain how Superman killed Billy Batson a child just remember Injustice Harley killed 11 million people among those people were innocent children yet none brings that up. So if Injustice Harley could get a redemption arc why can't her victim Superman too.

Thirdly there Injustice Wonder Woman another vice that lead to the downfall, Injustice Wonder Woman was the small little devil that kept manipulating Superman. Any time Superman would refrain from killing people or doing harm Injustice Wonder Woman was there to plunge him further down the dark path. Superman was in a weak mental state yet Wonder Woman kept fucking with him further and making things worse. Its even said by Scarecrow that in Injustice 2 when confronting Wonder Woman with her nightmare that she turned Superman that he wasn't supposed to be.

Although it was twisted and mangled he still valued and protected mankind from harm even when he was a tyrant. An example being when Kalibak from Apokolips launched an invasion on earth Superman killed the despotic soldier and killed every Parademon on earth saving the day. He even stops crime and brings world peace pretty making the world a better place.

Then theres Injustice Batman one of my least favourite versions of Batman, Injustice Batman failed Superman. After Superman killed the Joker, he went into the Fortress of Solitude to get himself together. Batman foolishly expected his co worker to immediately get over the death and be the same man which is just dumb considering what Injustice Superman went through is absolutely abhorrent. In addition to this Injustice Batman kept egging on Injustice Superman in the beginning rather than get him help instead.

I repeat I do not support Injustice Supermans actions later down the years but I want to have a redemption arc because he is the true victim of the whole series.

Cats are shown to kill billions of birds each year in the United States alone every year, and that doesn't even consider insects, reptiles and small mammals they kill. Cats are highly efficient predators and leaving them to roam the environment is a massive strain on ecosystems that are already struggling from other human factors. These populations of feral cats need to be reduced if we want to reduce the decline of important native fauna just as we would any other invasive species be it by trap and adopt, trap and euthanize or euthanized in place.

I could be wrong here, but there are essentially four ways to resolve the fertility rate problem in the developed world:

1. Immigration. Since the global fertility rate is well above replacement rate, it makes sense to bring in people from the Global South to keep the workforce and tax receipts sustainable for an ageing population. It doesn't solve the longer-term problem, but it will definitely buy governments a lot of time to figure out a more viable plan, like revolutionising our economic system so it's not so...ponzi-like anymore. Keep in mind that the fertility rate in Africa is not projected to drop below replacement rate for at least another 50 years.

2. Economic incentives. I wish this works but plenty of countries have tried this model but it's not really working, like the Nordic countries, Korea and Japan. Plus, I do not think that this model is sustainable in the long run because it is an incredibly expensive model that will cost taxpayers even more down the road.

3. Cultural shift. Essentially rowing back on our understanding of feminism and family values, kind of like Israel's ultra-orthodox community, which managed to keep Israel's fertility rate at 3.00 births per woman. This is an immoral and impossible solution because there is no way half the voter base will accept turning themselves into baby factories.

4. AI and Robot. The idea that automation and AI will replace human labour to the point where society no longer needs human workers to sustain itself is ludicrous and a pipedream. No revolution in technology has moved us in that direction even one bit, so there's no reason to believe the next one will. Plus, when will it be realised? 50 years? That's well too late to bet our society's sustainability on.

So the way I see it, immigration is the only economical, practical, and ethnical solution out there.

My coworkers with toddlers are everyday confirming my view, children suck up your time, Money and youth. Why anybody in his right mind would do It ?

I get the family feeling and warmth Is very nice, but I felt kind of the same with Friends and I think I can achieve It with a fraction of the Money and effort. So why do It ? I am in my 30s and I Always tought children make your Life complete, but now that I am really contemplating the idea, watching other people with children and weighting the pros and cons, I really struggle with the idea. Am I missing something or Is It really that people have too much time on their hands and Just do It because everybody else Is doing It ?

I am pretty much content with my Life and Is Just the look of Hope on my parents eyes and the peer pressure that Is making me consider this. I cannot understand if It Is something I Will miss Forever or Is It Just the social pressure that makes me feel missing of something.

I dont think humanity, myself is included has the emotional capacity to honestly say that sex work is a respectful industry to go into. I think this is too hopeful of a statement, like saying we will have world peace in ten years.

Woman are so dangerously hyper sexualised and always have been, and so going into it for “empowerment” doesn't feel sincere to me. Financial freedom is definitely empowering but not the how it's been achieved. Our self worth is tied to many things, one of them being how we spend are time and earn a living. Of course this isn't the case for everyone but it is for many.

Because with sex work, while the money side may be empowering, the act itself is not. Not if you are happy with people valuing your worth based off your genitals and animal nature. Something we all possess and didn't need to work for.

I am sure there are people reading this ready to write in the comments how judgemental I am, and perhaps thats true. I really don't mean to come across that way. I do respect peoples decision to go into the sex industry and not telling anyone not to do it. I am just wondering if there's anyone who can truly say that having sex with strangers and in front of a camera crew is something respectful, or if its societies pressure to be "woke" that makes people feel inclined to hold something that women have always been shamed for by so many men as respectful out of sympathy.

What I am saying isn’t so much my truth, but the truth of most peoples. Since humanity has existed, sexism towards women has existed on a much greater scale than sexism towards men. There are many ways to claim power without going into something that you wouldn't want your own children to do if you spent 18 years providing them with everything you can for a good life.

On a final note, I understand this topic is controversial and potentially triggering. I am willing to keep an open mind but I do request if you choose to debate this with me, you do so with an open heart and politeness :) Thanks!

Many people on that subreddit can be very mean. Most of the people on the that subreddit like that give destructive criticism instead of constructive criticism. Many of the people there like to shame others instead of trying to help others grow and improve.There are some users that are labeled as “Certified Proctologist” meaning an expert in assholes, which I find to be a bit self righteous.

I feel like it is important to have a subreddit that can offer people more constructive criticism and help them grow and become better people. Some of the people on that some Reddit are very condescending.

There is the common view that police, as an institution, is (and therefore police officers themselves are) often racist. However, I don't think police are more likely to be racist than any other profession. It's just that you see the effects of it more because police have more power (like to use deadly force) if they are, in fact, racist. In my opinion, someone's profession has nothing to do with them being racist. So I don't think police officers are any more likely to be racist than retail workers, for example. It's just that the consequences are greater if they choose to act on it.

Every so often I see a post on Reddit or somewhere else on social media saying something to the effect of "Parenting today is not working." And/or how kids can can have so much audacity, be so disrespectful/disruptive and have no filter. Usually a lot of the blame for that is attributed to parents. I have observed two opposite extremes of "It is is because of the gentle parenting and child centre households having no discipline." And also (this is usually on AITA) "too much punishment and no talking about why"

I am studying sociology, I can't help but think that what can probably now be considered too much media socialisation could actually be the culprit for a lot of annoying behaviours. I am not saying this is all bad, or that the way things were before were good but prior to social media, parents, as long as their kids trusted them had a decent amount of control over what their kids were allowed to be exposed to. There was familial socialisation, Educational socialisation, peer group socialisation, maybe religious socialisation and a moderate amount of media socialisation (the TV, comics, the library etc.)

So, if you're family didn't want you to swear and so didn't swear in front of or at you, and nobody swore in your educational setting(s), and you were friends with a group of kids who were from families with similar morals and the same school setting, they are probably not going to swear in front of you either. Swearing uncensored was (is?) not allowed on TV until after most kids would have bene in bed. You could potentially hit double digits without discovering swearing. Ignorance is bliss, see no evil, whatever you want to call it. But now with Tictok and YouTube, you will probably hear it before you hear the word pencil case.

Same with drugs. If no one in your family or school told you drugs existed, and you were in a good peer group, how were you going to discover drugs? You could not know they existed until you were old enough to have enough reliable sense not to use them. But now you can read all about them online. Not just the bad, but the percieved good as well.

The peer group would have been the biggest threat to that morality, if you made friends with someone who was from a home were drug use by their parents was the norm, they could introduce you to it, for example. Now, the media is at least just as much of a threat, but probably 10 times worse. It might not be the parents fault. They could be trying to instill morality into their kids but there is literally only so much they can control about what their kids are exposed to nowadays.

They cannot really control what their kids view on social media. In theory you could use parental controls, but then you become that tyrant, helicopter parent. You could take your kids phone and look their search history, but then when you give it back, your kids would probably come across something like this to throw back at you. (I am personally against searching through kids phones, but that might be because I am still closer to having been a kid than becoming a parent myself.)

Or any time you try to do something which may have even minor controversy surrounding it, like that scene from Megan were the aunt is making Katie eat her vegetables and the Alexa like robot spews parenting advice at her about how you have to give kids a choice or they will develop a bad relationship with healthy food. Neither of those things are "wrong". I imagine parenting is very similar to sociology in the sense that are usually many right answers and only a few which are objectively "wrong". But kids aren't supposed to know how to parent. It is supposed to be an adult's job. With the parent being an adult and their child being, a child. But with social media, if a parent and their child have a disagreement over something like that, the child could probably find some "proof" in no time about why whatever their parent did, such as taking their phone away was "wrong".

Now of course it is not always the media. There are still plenty of parents who simply are not very very good at parenting and are to blame. I really suspect the media is as much to blame, if not a little moreso than parents are in a lot of cases. If people who work in schools, youth setting as well as members of the general public think the behaviour of late Gen Y, Gen Z and Gen Alpha kids is bad, the parents are probably getting it twenty times worse at home with little they can do to permanently resolve it. Taking the internet away for a few days or a week after the fact is a bandaid on a bullet hole, treating a symptom rather than the cause. But as I said above, there is little that can be done about said cause without stepping into authoritarian/helicopter parenting.

Nowadays, the supply of goods is stimulated by the state with subsidies, excise taxes, taxes, loans and others.

My argument for the free market is that it is ethical. Making alcohol and tobacco expensive will not stop people from using it. If tobacco and alcohol are expensive, people will simply buy them on the black market, which is harmful and dangerous to health, and which the criminal world can profit from. Also, if the price of alcohol and tobacco decreases after the abolition of excise taxes, people will spend the saved money on other things like food, clothing, and services. A huge amount of money is freed up and goes into more useful industries, which stimulates the economy. So the price of tobacco and alcohol products should not be regulated through excise taxes.

Another thing is, of course, business subsidies, especially the meat industry. Vegans, of course, talk a lot about the unethical nature of meat consumption. But what they don’t understand and what not to talk about is that instead of banning meat, it is enough to simply cancel subsidies, as a result of which huge corporations will simply not be profitable and the production of meat products will be decentralized, redistributed throughout the country and the quantity of meat products will decrease, while simultaneously increasing its quality.

I can say exactly the same thing about ending subsidies for the auto industry, especially electric vehicles. Environmentalists nowadays talk a lot about caring for the environment, but in fact, by subsidizing electric cars and giving their owners all sorts of discounts on electricity, they are playing a bad game, going against their own interests in preserving the environment.

Be it consumption of tobacco, meat, electricity, etc. I believe that from an ethical point of view there is nothing better than a free market where prices will be set by producers and will not be regulated by the state.

I originally mistook the Kalam for the argument of change seeing how objected, that the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time and thus can‘t have a temporal cause. This can be rather applied to the actualizer argument, saying that actualization needs time, so nothing could have actualized the beginning of the universe. But for the Kalam we apparently are rather talking about causes in the metaphysical sense. The causes of:

1. What something is made out of.

2. What form/action/kind of being it has.

3. What temporal cause it has.

4. What it is for.

Aside from three, which is my original objection, of course the universe has these causes (although we can easily get into some Spinoza territory)! I now don‘t see though why something having a beginning should have anything to do with having the other four causes. This seems more like an everything has them situation, which fits since metaphysics is about the base causes and principles for literally everything! The first premise of the Kalam is completely unintuitive for me. Could perhaps someone clear me up?

Talking about the free will debate. Compatibilists know hard determinism makes the most sense, but they’re so afraid of the moral implications that they pretend to hold a moderate stance on libertarianism.

Compatilibilists say that our actions are pre determined, but we’re still to blame if we fuck up anyway. It’s uncharitable.

I realize that hard determinism can easily lead to moral nihilism and anarchy but there are ways to defend ethics and maintain a hard determinist stance. Such as the concept of self ownership.

We are free to do what we will, but not free to will what we will. You can call that free will if you want to, but it’s not what most people have in mind.

The direct route from new York to los Angeles via Chicago, Denver and las Vegas is just about 3100miles or just shy of 2500 miles direct. So the tracks could potentially be 3500miles long or around 2800 miles depending on the stops. The new Shinkansen currently under construction in Japan has a operating top speed of 310 mph.

So in ideal but somewhat realistic conditions it would take between 9.5 and 12 hours from city center to City Center plus some time to where you want to be which shouldn't take too long.

A flight from la to ny takes 6h plus check in and TSA (~2h, might be faster) plus taxi and baggage collection (~45 min) plus getting where you want to be in the city which probably takes a bit longer than the train since the airport are somewhat outside of the city (+30 min for getting to and from the airports). That is 9h15min.

Now that is still faster than the train but the train gives much more comfort and luxury. This can be especially important for people who need to work during these kinds of commuts.

Additionally for people living not at the coasts the train will be even more attractive.

Although the title sais other, the us should not just spend billions because this crappy analysis is somewhat positive. But the us should definitely consider it. It might have a huge impact on climate and connecting more rural areas to the coasts.

For this viewpoint, I am speaking for suicide rates in the US, which have grown tremendously among the youth, accompanying a "mental health crisis" for Gen-Z and adjacent generations. But, as far as I am aware, suicide among youths is increasing everywhere.

The world is certainly generally better than how it was in the 1960s and before, but it would be difficult to argue that the world in 2014 or 2004 was worse than the world in 2024 (on average, in the developed world). Additionally, it would be even more difficult to argue that the outlook of the future from 2004 or 2014 is better than the outlook of the future in 2024.

The future from the eyes of 2024 looks grim. We are 90 seconds to midnight. Global warming presents an existential danger to humanity and Earth that our leaders are doing frustratingly little about. Conflicts are erupting across the world and, due to social media and the news cycle, we are constantly looped in about the suffering that collective humanity is going through.

I think a grim outlook is bipartisan, as well. Young conservatives fear that woke-ism is taking over the United States and that we are losing the moral fabric keeping our nation united, creating problems and weakness for the future--men are being left behind, and endeavors in "equality" are destroying the lives of average, everyday Americans. Likewise, liberals are witnessing the democratic structures of this government being torn apart with the dangerous actions of proto-fascists (like with project 2025). Economic inequality is getting worse and we are doing nothing to prevent it, all the while, the people oppressed face the brunt of the storm we are in. There are also things that affect all young people--rising costs of higher education, higher costs of living, increased pollution etc.

The world looks like it's on a downward trend with no signs of stopping. Of course, increased talk about mental health contributes to a higher prevalence of mental illness among youth just because the topic is less stigmatized, but this should not also create higher suicide rates; if anything, it should lower them. Instead, we are seeing suicides among adolescents more and more, despite mental health initiatives.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that young people are committing suicide because the future they stand to inherit is a difficult, awful one, alongside all the problems people face in life (trauma, poverty, abuse, loneliness, etc). Why continue living in a world that will only continue to go down the drain? There's no hope to be found. Is there another story to this, or can the perceived worsening state of the world be attributed to rising suicide among Gen Z (and those younger or slightly older)?

EDIT: I am talking about a perceived negative outlook. There are many Gen Zers who believe climate change presents an existential threat to humanity, for example. The factual basis of this belief is not relevant; only that it is believed.

SOURCE: "For people aged 10–14,
the suicide rate tripled from
2007 through 2018 (from
0.9 to 2.9), and then did not
change significantly through
2021"

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/128423

There are also other places that seem to support this general trend.

I thought this sub could have a more lighthearted post, and is for the comic fans out there! It seems that some superhero fans are always super impressed with how edgy heroes and anti-heroes are, and whether they’re ok with killing, or how good they are at it (Deadpool, Punisher… can’t think of a third one, comment if you feel like sharing one)

The way I see it, it’s way more impressive when a hero says they won’t kill. If you kill someone the fight is over forever, but if you don’t you have to both subdue them and keep them subdued, which seems way harder in my opinion. It also seems unethical to have an unelected vigilante playing judge and executioner, if you want Joker to die, vote as a citizen in a democracy for a policy that can make it happen.

On the other hand, some seem to be really impressed at Deadpool and stuff, and all the slicing and dicing and backflips. Also on the other hand (thinking utilitarianly) maybe it’s unethical to let someone like Joker live, because his life continuing ends the lives of others in the future.

I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts!

I keep seeing so many posts about male birth control and women wishing that men could take her pill instead. But I don't think this would solve almost any of the issues that they have with birth control?

Say someone made a pill for men, basically the same as the one for women, in terms of effectiveness (edit to clarify).

Let's assume it's no safer, because if they could make it safer than why not just make a safer one for women first? (Ignoring the fact that it's much much much harder to make a male pill than female since preventing an egg from being fertilized is much easier than making every sperm cell in trillions infertile in the testes without also lower testerone)

When would it be useful? Not for any short term relationships. If you met a dude on tinder and he told you "yeah let's go raw I'm on the pill" would you believe him? Of course fucking not. So it's useless here.

Long Term Relationships: You're just shifting the symptoms, and for the worse. From a female pill with decades behind in to a new one for men. This solves nothing except now the symptoms changed carriers.

The most common argument is: he's the one that wants raw sex not me, I don't care either way: but in that case, why the fuck are you even together?

You're clearly not sexually compatible, would it not be in your best interests to find someone who enjoys sex the same way you do, namely, with a condom, and avoid all this?

So; the pill for men basically only helps couples in a long term relationship, where they don't want kids but might want it in the future, where the woman doesn't want to take the pill, the man is willing to take it, and they think the symptoms are better than having to have sex with a condom, and the man is not willing to get a vasectomy.

Surely, this is not a huge market? Like. What concerns does this new pill actually solve?

Edit: to clarify I'm not calling it useless I'm saying it wouldn't be economically viable or reduce the amount of women taking BC by a substantial amount.

Our leaders have been gaslighting us for deciding saying immigration is good, it's a net positive, diversity is our strength. Well look the fuck around, it fucked over the country, everything is horrible and getting worse and it's still increasing the rate it's getting worse and we haven't even started to take our foot off the gas yet...

We are bringing in 430k people in a quarter that's 1.72 million a year if not more (as I've said we've done nothing but increase the rate things get worse).

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-population-grew-by-430-000-in-q3-1.6693405

We only build 250~k housing units a year, at 2.5 people per house that's over a million more homeless people every year... BEFORE talking about housing that needs to be replaced due to age/fire/whatever.

Only 26% of people can afford a home based on their income only 45% can afford a condo.

https://ntdca.com/just-26-of-canadian-households-can-afford-a-single-family-home-rbc-report/

This means if everyone was forced to pay current market rates for a home 55% of the population would be homeless or at least crammed in like sardines. This is so beyond absurd I don't even know what to say, the country is on fire and we just keep pouring on the gasoline.

Anyone who has a "just build more housing" argument I demand a full accounting of how that can feasibly be accomplished given the logistical bottlenecks and not just for housing for all infrastructure. If you can give me that and the numbers add up you will get a delta as I currently don't believe it's physically possible let alone logistically possible

But that's not the end of the problems with immigration, oh no that's just the start. Increase populations have lead to a failing healthcare and other infrastructure due to just too much demand, we have genital mutilation and other issues that of course the cops do jack shit about due to "it's their culture". China literally had a spy in one of our viral research laboratories which may or may not have contributed to covid happening... We have people who can't write English properly threatening businesses for extortion money.

Honestly everything is just absurd and the whole problem is so obvious mathematically, I can only conclude that those responsible for these policies are literal traitors especially with all the China espionage that goes unpunished, this is corruption based on monied and foreign countries interests that's the only explanation for these policies and those responsible need to be held legally accountable and face decades in prison at the least execution at the most depending what they find.

We have an estimated million illegal overstays and our government is currently drafting a bill to give them status... These people need to be deported but they don't need to face any kind of punishment, they just need to leave and never come back, it's the only thing we can do to cool the fire in the meantime and there's no point in keeping people in the country who can't even renew their visa.

Whether toothpick, umbrella, small plastic spear, the result is always the same. You get the sandwich, pull the toothpick out, start eating.

First I understand the idea of the toothpick is to hold the sandwich together after it's made.

My view is simple, the toothpick serves the purpose of keeping the sandwich aligned from the time it's created to being in front of you. When it goes to your table, the toothpick should be removed. Why do you need to remove it?

What if you don't notice there is one because the sandwich is very tall? I've had that happen and nearly badly hurt myself.

Why do you have to deal with the trashed toothpick? If you're dining with small kids you don't want sharp stuff like that anywhere near them.

Notice, I didn't say anything about knives. Some places will serve a burger with a knife through the middle. That's great! It keeps the sandwich aligned AND is extremely visible to the customer AND provides utility.

You can change my mind only one way. Create a situation where I actually would want my sandwich to be served with a toothpick. And why a knife wouldn't workbin said situation (because I believe the sandwich knife is superior).

As we push towards a more sustainable future, I believe it is essential for the land we have in the United States to be used wisely, morally and efficiently.

According to the World Population Review, the United States has nearly 400 million acres of arable land, that is, land viable for growing crops. This happens to be the largest amount of arable land in any country in the world, to misuse this amount of land, especially as other countries struggle to use the land they do have, is grossly wrong. According to the latest US census, there are 333 million people in the country, meaning we have over an acre of arable land per citizen. The research bounces up and down, but sources suggest the amount of land required to sustain an individual tends to be right around an acre.

I suggest that when a property is purchased, and it contains arable land, if the property is large (this is legally defined as anything over 7.56 acres, which I think is a good definition for this concept but, like all the other elements could be shifted over time to meet needs), at least 1 acre on the property should be used for crop growth, and on increasingly larger properties this required amount of acreage would be proportionate (the sliding scale could be discussed but this implementation isn't the focus of my argument). Ideally, these crops (beyond whatever your family is consuming if its a residential property) would be provided for free to a local stockpile (perhaps on the town, county, or even city level) to be redistributed as necessary. However, I would be willing to at least start this idea with the possibility of the landowners selling their product back to the state, for profit.

Of course, we come across the issue many will have - "You expect me to work extra hard to maintain a farm on my land!?". This is a valid concern, and there is a simple solution - simply employing the market to solve this will create jobs across the country as people who don't want to tend their crops can hire someone who will do it for them.

To enforce this, I propose either property sale is fully forbidden without a legally binding document that states the owner will dedicate part of their property to crop growth, or a tax such that the land owner is required to pay, by vehicle of state or federal taxes, into other government-funded social systems. This tax would be set up such that it is proportional to the amount of land you are misusing. This would be especially important in the case of property owners who destroy the arable land (by building a mall on a large plot, etc.), and a higher tax would have to be imposed if the land is in any way permanently made unusable for crop growth.

Conversely, I think tax breaks or some other form of benefit could be provided to property owners who "go above and beyond" in their land use. Landowners who produce a broader variety of highly nutritious crops and/or meat (i.e. through systems like aquaponics with fish should be rewarded for the extra effort they're putting in and in turn the extra benefit they're providing.

It's also important to consider the ecological impact of something like this, and it would be important to focus on crops that require low amounts of water, minimal amounts of intervention and yield high levels of nutrition (beans, quinoa, certain leafy greens, etc. fall into this category).

I would love to further flesh out this idea and am interested in holes I can look at. Please keep the conversation respectful and stick to commenters' points, including mine. Far too many people speak with emotion in these conversations and I'd like to keep it strictly logical and moral. Let's have fun!

My view is basically all in the title. Leftists that have branded the president “genocide Joe” and refuse to acknowledge that republicans are much, much worse than democrats on basically every issue they care about are actively beneficial to Republicans. By convincing many young Americans that there is basically no difference between the two parties, they create lots of voter apathy which convinces young people and other leftists to stay home. This is essentially what got Trump elected (and appointing three Supreme Court justices) the first time around, and as a left wing person that agrees with these people on nearly every policy point, I am concerned that it’s going to happen again, and I am more concerned that so many alleged leftists seem to be okay with this.

Basically, I think leftists that refuse to support the “lesser evil” only serve as useful idiots for fascists. Please CMV.

It seems that in general the techniques used by the violin are by far more difficult than those on the piano, and (during at least the beginning and intermediate stages) the violin by far outweighs the piano in terms of difficulty. With the piano you can immediately play in tune by pressing a key, but it can take days to simply learn how to play a simple D Major scale in tune on violin. I’ve also seen that (in my opinion) the most difficult piano pieces don’t compare in difficulty to the most difficult violin pieces. Perfectly playing a Paganini piece seems much harder that playing a Rachmaninoff piece.

A student who borrows $40,000 to pay for tuition (the average upon graduation is $38,290) and has made $50,000 in payments is not getting a handout if Biden forgives the remainder of their principle. The only thing that changes is how much extra money the government is getting back beyond the loan they originally gave.

Furthermore, for 25 to 34 year olds, the median salary is more than $20,000 greater for a person with a bachelor's degree than it is for a person with only their high school diploma. The government has spent $40,000, has in many cases received more than $40,000 in student loan payments, and, for their investment, they got a person who generates somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000 more in federal taxes for them each year. They could have forgiven the entire $40,000 upon graduation and still be in the black on their ledgers.

Just to push my argument further, non-fatal work injuries are negatively correlated with educational attainment, so the government invests in a college education and they get a worker that is less likely to take from the coffers via social security disability. (Same for SNAP benefits and the earned income credit, which the college educated are less likely to qualify for.)

America has the most well armed civilians in the world. Many Germans did not want to put Jew in camps. But when armed Nazis show up, there's little that unarmed civilians can do. As a result, non-Jewish Germans turn a blind eye, content that their own lives are safe. If the whole German population (including Jews) were as well armed as the American population, it is unlikely that the holocaust can take place.

Most police and military are unhappy to obey evil commands, like put a large number of innocent people into camps and murder them. Especially if they are fellow citizens as opposed to a foreign enemy. They will be more unwilling to do so if those innocent citizens can band together shoot back. I strongly believe that many non-Jewish Germans would have aided Jews if they had the firepower.

The CMV is not to debate what types of guns were available or existed back then vs now. America's current civilian firepower is enough to prevent a holocaust by the government. CMV.

Edit - Cops were unwilling to enforce covid regulations because they did not believe people were guilty of any crime. Imagine knocking on 1000 houses to put innocent people in camps and how many cops will decide that's not ok.

Want to point out that I'm aware that both take lots of hardwork, commiment, and are commendable. That being said I don't consider either to be atheletes. Now I'm not saying bodybuilders and powerlifters can't be/aren't atheletic, but being one doesn't make you an athelete.

Bodybuilding is more of an artform. Your genetics are your canvas, while your diet, your consistancy, your drugs, are the tools. I'm pretty hardset on this opinion.

Now Powerlifting is technically a "sport". That being said im still leaning towards them not being athletes. The primary(basically only) component is strength. It's either you can lift the weight or you can't. It's too 2-dimensional when you compare it to other sports that employ strategy, coordination, timing, adaptive thinking, "functional physicality", conditioning, and other factors.

Not knocking any of these, if you enjoy being one/watching them, then by all means be proud of that. Also for further personal context I do go to the gym a lot, but don't really identify as either.

i’ve only ever heard femcels boast about this, with no real nuance

it’s a generalized statement that groups an entire community with the individual. i believe that one can critique the disproportionate statistics against men in crimes but that’s no reason call all men trash, rapists etc. saying “not all men” against a post of a woman sharing her experiences are invalid i GET that but in situations where that is not the case this statement is pure misandrist.

i’ve always seen this phrase used in order to defend a misandrist statement. lets flip it around and use it against minorities.

“not all black people are criminals!” “well not ALL black people but ALWAYS a black person”.

see how that’s wrong? we can swap it with any minority that has a statistic that goes against them (there are hundreds). racists use it as an excuse to be anti-immigrant. i find it disheartening that most people lack the introspection to realize this statement is bigoted until the roles are switched just goes to show how normalized misandry is compared to misogyny

Tried posting this on r/unpopularopinion but they deleted it so i thought hopefully this group is more free to express my opinion. :

Not everyone is born equally not everyone has the same equal mindset and skills.

Should we really push for equality in a world where people have differences ?

People wanna be diverse not equal.

People's worldview are too different to be actually seen as equal

There's so many differences between male and female , young and old , different religions , political views that's it's almost impossible to reach "Equality"

There's so many difference between people that it's impossible to see everyone as equal

Our Worldview is different , what we think of God or existence of it is different , What we see as morally good is different , Our skills is different , How we wanna be treated is different.

Nobody actually wants to be equal because to be equal is for everyone to be on the same level or be the same.

People wanna feel special and different , it's human nature to be competitive.

Maybe i am wrong but the way i see it everyone is too different and too divided to see everyone as Equal and Equality can only work in a "perfect" world but the world ain't perfect .

Maybe we should just accept everyone is different.

But if i am wrong and we want equality what's the solution ?

Ok the title has a lot to unpack so let's get into it. We are now seeing a surge in people wanting more attention on domestic violence against men, and while i agree, it is not presented in the way it is and is often over exaggerated.

For instance many of the "domestic violence against men" by women are actually self defense. There is a term called reactive abuse which is very common among victims of domestic violence

https://breakthesilencedv.org/reactive-abuse-what-it-is-and-why-abusers-rely-on-it/

It is simply a reaction to repeated abuse by the hands of the abuser, it triggers the victim to fight back or react badly. A prime example of this is the Gabby Petitio case where her abuser repeatedly abused her and she reacted to him, when the police arrived, it seemed like her abuser was the victim and Gabby was the real "abuser" and the crazy one.

This is further evidenced by how women who kill their husbands serve longer prison sentence than men who kill their wives

https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/in-the-news/women-serve-longer-prison-sentences-after-killing-abusers#google_vignette

This challenges the narrative that women are just as abusive as men are and this is demonstratingly false.

Now onto the real culprit of domestic abuse against men, the perpetrators of the male victims of abuse are not women but other men.

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/challenging-the-mra-claim-of-a-domestic-violence-conspiracy/8632190

The above article presents everything i argued about to save time let me, just print it out in this post

Dr Michael Flood, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Queensland University of Technology, with a focus on gender and masculinities, said that by focusing on the tiny proportion of violent women, the MRAs only shifted the focus away from the real threat: violent men.

The MRAs mis-diagnose the problem and therefore mis-prescribe the cure," he said.

According to the ABS, 89 per cent of males and 67 per cent of females who were victims of physical assault reported that the offender was male.

Michael Brandenburg said that, in his 25 years experience, where there was domestic violence against men, it tended to be perpetrated by other male family members.

"One of the challenges we're finding at the moment is men moving back home to live with elderly parents," he said.

"There's some violence occurring in those relationships."

As you can see an expert himself with 25 years of experience has stated that the real perpetrators of domestic violence against men are not women but other men, mostly relatives.

Now for those who say it's because men are less likely to report a woman hitting them, here is a counter arguement

Some MRAs argue the one in three figure actually underestimates the number of male victims of domestic violence, because men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner.

Hack has heard from men who said they were too afraid to report violence by their female partner, or thought the police wouldn't take them seriously.

But apart from these anecdotal reports, there's only mixed evidence to back up this claim, with some studies showing men are more likely to report violence, and others showing they're less likely.

It's also possible many women are afraid to report domestic violence.

Dr Salter pointed out that men often testify to police about being the victims of violence, even though, like with being beaten up by a woman, this violence has been humiliating.

"Men can report degrading violence by men but somehow they're terrified to report violence by their female partner," he said.

"I don't think this is a logical argument."

Now i understand this is all controversial and seems like i'm diminishing male domestic violence victims but it is important to get the facts about the problems we face in this society.Which is why i made this post to see if i am wrong about this because i want to believe that most men are being sincere about how common domestic violence against men is.

Can someone help me change my view?

This post was inspired by my experiences trying to meet new people in my college campus in places were folks are known to socialize such as the university commons. One reason I believe that is that people are always busy with either school work, media, or interacting with groups of friends. This means there’s never a good time to approach without intruding people’s work, conversation with friends, or current activities. This intrusion might set up bad first impressions with you and that person or group as it can come off as not respecting their space/boundaries. The reason I didn’t include clubs, while they are good ways to meet people. Are really hard to work with when you commute as club hours tend to happen very late in the day. In general even in public settings for students in college, it seems there aren’t good ways to interact with other students apart from classes or clubs.