Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
No fast food. No soda, including diet soda. They have to drink aspartame free sparkling water if they need something carbonated.
Or maybe we can still let them get fast food but they have to order off a special menu.
You want to track fat people around and forbid them, forcefully from eating fast food and drinking soda?
Id much rather align myself with chez in rewriting mein kampf to charlottes web than that.
Right. You're focusing on custody, but my question was "how many of those things?" We don't take people's licenses to practice law away for being addicted to smoking, for example. As for an employer, they can discriminate based on anything that is not a protected class. They can fire you because you smoke, or because you're fat, or because they don't like the colour of your hair, but not because you're gay, or female, or black.
I mean, I don't see why not. Is there some sort of list of factors judges are prohibited from taking into consideration in a child custody case or something?
Can the judge claim the child is unsafe in the black-only neighborhood one of the parents lives in with 10x the crime rate of the neighborhood the other parent lives in, and use that as the basis for custody?
Right. You're focusing on custody, but my question was "how many of those things?" We don't take people's licenses to practice law away for being addicted to smoking, for example.
No for licenses afaik they do act on psychotropic substances only for now (again details might vary depending on the country).
But you can lose your license as a physician (or nurse) in the USA if you are positive to THC even if not "under the effect" on the job and even if cannabis is legal in your state.
These are the protected classes in the UK, I imagine the US is similar.
No for licenses afaik they do act on psychotropic substances only for now (again details might vary depending on the country).
But you can lose your license as a physician (or nurse) in the USA if you are positive to THC even if not "under the effect" on the job and even if cannabis is legal in your state.
Smoking cigarettes ldo.
You want to track fat people around and forbid them, forcefully from eating fast food and drinking soda?
Id much rather align myself with chez in rewriting mein kampf to charlottes web than that.
No tracking. That would be Orwellian. Everyone is required to weigh in if the fast food clerk thinks their BMI might be more than 20-- sort of the same way people get ID'd for alcohol.
No tracking. That would be Orwellian. Everyone is required to weigh in if the fast food clerk thinks their BMI might be more than 20-- sort of the same way people get ID'd for alcohol.
Can't the clerk just scan the chip that got implanted when they had their Covid vaccine, so as not to hold up the rest of the line?
You understand this is much more important than it looks like, because of the underlying implications?
So I am not making up a purely hypothetical discourse on group treatment, this is something going on right now.
But for now, at least for obesity, we can still discuss everything from genetical propensities, to full personal responsibility, and everything in between.
Now try to move on 50 years from now in a scenario where the "social obesity warriors" won every cultural battle, and discourse on personal responsibility for weight is treated like you guys treat me if I dare assume the possibility that ethnical group intelligence is even marginally genetically determined.
Now you understand my point better? About what's censored in this forum and why?
If it was for moral reasons they would subsidize vaping as it is clearly infinitely better for health than actual smoking.Instead they tax it anyway (in excess of VAT, with special extra taxes) because otherwise revenue drops too much.That's how you know they are lying to you about the moral reason for vice taxes.(I realize vaping isn't extra-taxed in the UK but it is in most o
Sorry cross purposes. I'm talkign about the arguments. Nothing much to do with politcians
Happy Easter and a yearly reminder that Yul Brynner is the greatest of all time.
Can the judge claim the child is unsafe in the black-only neighborhood one of the parents lives in with 10x the crime rate of the neighborhood the other parent lives in, and use that as the basis for custody?
Of course. Evaluation of proposed neighborhoods in terms of the child's safety is a routine part of the process. Crime rates, presence of registered sex offenders, proximity to locations considered potential problems like prisons and half way houses can all be considered. But your unnecessary qualifier of "black only" cannot.
*Moderation question*
Will there be a replacement for Browser or is this….it
Whether free will exists or not is an interesting philosophical question. But regardless, society basically requires that we act as if it does exist for most people. Societies cant really function otherwise.
Sure they can. And with very little different than they do now.
Really the only difference I can think of would be the idea of punishment for crimes. But I don't believe punishment serves any purpose anyway. I believe in having a stronger, more severe criminal justice system than there is now, for violent crimes, but for protection from violent people, not in order to punish them.
