I genuinely don’t care for domestic animals. They’re fundamentally property and beneath humanity to me. I think we should care about animal welfare for environmental reasons and as a stewardship for any non-person entity.
I am against a law allowing LGBTQ couples to adopt children in my country (Poland). I am not in any way against it as a general idea, but Polish society is full of full-on bigots and these kids would be subject to so much bullying, it’s really against their best interest.
The argument a lot of people raise “if we start doing it then people will get used to it” doesn’t work for me, because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight? The whole thing makes me sick.
I’ve been downvoted for this opinion by both sides on Reddit.
Do you have a better solution? Progress always requires people to fight for the things they believe in and want to change, we don’t go anywhere unless people actually do something.
It’s such a difficult topic. I have family that left their country because, although they can adopt a child as a same sex couple, the culture is so bigoted they dont want to subject their future children (and themselves) to the sort of interactions they have to deal with.
I believe legalizing marriage, normalizing LGBTQ couples’ status first to prove the general society that they’re not actually some sick perverted sickos before we allow children adoption, should be the first step. Also waiting for the old people to die out, to put it bluntly.
Keep in mind Poland is still a hugely conservative society, in full grasp of the Catholic church. It’s changing, you can clearly see the trend, but on the other hand our current government is still actively painting LGBTQ+ as some sort of harmful ideology or what not. We have a long way to come.
But just waiting for others to die out doesn’t always work. Take for instance the southern US. It took the federal government intervening (sometimes violently) to actually deal with a lot of the ingrained racism. And even then, there is still plenty around, and in some places it is gaining in popularity. In my mind, the argument you are posing could easily be subbed in as "we shouldn’t allow mixed race couples to have children, as those that are racist will inevitably traumatize the children. " I get that your argument is probably not from a place off outright homophobia, but it is kinda homophobic in that it accepts that children shouldn’t be around gay/lesbian parents because of what others will think and do. Is Poland shitty to LGBTQ couples? Probably, but just waiting for people to eventually accept them isn’t gonna fix the issue.
Your intention is good, but that’s not the way to fight this problem. Limiting LGBTQs’ ability to adopt children so society doesn’t pick on them is akin to disallowing knives because people can use them for stabbing purposes: it works, I suppose, but you’re removing a lot of benefits. Like cutting an arm when you have a cut, instead of treating the cut.
I’ll admit, I don’t know what the real solution is, and if it’s even possible to have a tolerant society and untraumatized children at the same time, but opposing the law entirely isn’t it.
Knives don’t have feelings. Would you willingly put your own child through bullying for a better cause but of very little direct benefit to themselves (most likely, theres a chance they’ll be LGBTQ too of course)? I wouldn’t, I don’t think it’s worth it to make a child a martyr.
Dude, kids are gonna be bullied literally no matter what. Sometimes for no reason at all! It’s the parents’ job to help the kids deal with it in a healthy way. I don’t see why you’re pretending they would be “martyrs” any more than I was a “martyr” for my right to… have a few more freckles than the other kids.
Being supportive of denying rights to loving couples instead of proactively fighting to change the mentalities appears as the easy, comfortable solution.
How is it “instead”? Why do you want to use children as weapons in changing those mentalities? I personally value the well being of these children higher than the right to adopt for these couples.
(copying from another reply I made)
I believe legalizing marriage, normalizing LGBTQ couples’ status first to prove the general society that they’re not actually some sick perverted sickos before we allow children adoption, should be the first step. Also waiting for the old people to die out, to put it bluntly.
Keep in mind Poland is still a hugely conservative society, in full grasp of the Catholic church. It’s changing, you can clearly see the trend, but on the other hand our current government is still actively painting LGBTQ+ as some sort of harmful ideology or what not. We have a long way to come.
You value the well being of children so much that you think they should remain orphans instead of being adopted by loving parents because people in your country are bigoted against those parents… Gotcha.
There are no orphans up for adoption in Poland, you have to wait your turn in line to adopt because there are so many couples that can’t have children. My close friends waited over 3 years. The only kids in the system are the ones who are in the middle of a legal fight and can’t be adopted.
I don’t want for children to be used or exposed, I want for adults to ensure their protection actually; that’s why I think it’s the easy choice you’re making, because it’s easier to appease the country’s bigots than to safeguard children of gay parents. I’d also like to point that refusing them to be adopted by a ready and able to care for them family is harming children in its own way.
I understand the second part of your comment, Poland’s context and all. However, I’m not convinced by the soundness of a slow progressive approach at a time when there’s an international organized effort from the right to ensure their hold on, or grasp as much power as they can…
Down votes are for comments that detract from the topic. Having an unpopular opinion on a thread that’s asking for your unpopular opinion is exactly what up voting is for. It’s too bad you can’t down vote the down votes in these apps.
I live in a country with a relatively similar political climate as Poland (highly religious, post-communist, wannabe central Europe). And I used to use the same argument when I was surrounded by more conservative people. The argument is IMO frequently invoked not by people who are truly worried about children (which I’ll write about below), but by conservatives who need a civilised, “agnostic” argument for their homophobic stances. But ofc it’s better to assume good intentions, at least if you don’t know anything about the person using the argument (as e.g. here).
The biggest problem with the argument is that it’s purely reactive and, under the hood, disingenuous. Children bully each other horribly already for a million stupid reasons - their shoe brand, their phone brand, their behaviour, etc. or just so, for no detectable reason at all. They also bully their teachers and professors. What is done against all this? Absolutely nothing, as far as I see (and I’ve seen and heard plenty while I was growing up). It is never brought up as a problem in public discourse, nobody seems to care too much. Bullying somehow becomes a big problem and relevant for the lawmaking only when gay parents are a possibility.
In general, from what I’ve seen, bullies will find just about any reason to target a kid. Adding one more to the roster seems borderline trivial. E.g. a lot of existing bullying is class-based - my younger sister was mildly ostracised in the primary school for a while because she wore the clothes my mother sewed for her, without a brand or anything, suggesting we don’t have the money to buy “proper” clothes. Should we, then, try to separate poor kids from the rich kids, so the poor don’t get bullied? Or just forbid poor kids from going to school?
Thus, instead of doing anything against the actual problem – that is, bullying as such – the laws of the state, the fundamental right of a child to a family, etc. should all buckle down before some child bullying? A child should be denied growing up with a potentially good and loving family with LGBT parents, and instead be adopted by a potentially inferior heterosexual family (assuming the adoption centres have some sort of system to judge the adopters in advance), or stay without a family at all indefinitely, because someone could/will bully them based on their most intimate and safe space, that is their family? Just as it would be monstrous to forbid poor kids from going to school to “protect” them from bullying, it is monstrous to propose “to protect some kids from bullying, we’ll deny them from having a family”. The whole argument is actually (or should be) an argument for aggressively rethinking and reworking your educational system , parenting and culture in general.
because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight
Under the current system they’re also victims and involved in this same war - a part of their potential adopters is denied by default, and they stay without a family for longer. Are they not victims here? (Not to get into the issue of measuring potential benefits of having a family against the potential negatives of bullying, it’s purely arbitrary and depends on the given culture too.)
On the other hand, I do think the whole discussion has been derailed by overly focusing on this as an LGBT issue rather than an issue of children without families. So there’s some merit at least in the general approach of the argument you present (the children are those whose well-being is most important here), but it leads to the wrong conclusion, usually because it’s invoked by people who really just want to get to that conclusion one way or another, rather than helping the kids.
Sure kids get bullied, that’s the default. But why add such a strong factor willingly? That’s what I don’t get. I can only imagine the fucking hate some of the parents would be spitting out and obviously their kids would take it to school. So that kid would not only get bullied for any of the reasons you mentioned, they’d have their parents sexual orientation added on top.
Also, that last argument doesn’t hold up in Poland. There are more couples wanting to adopt than children up for adoption. My close friends, unable to conceive, waited for over three years. The only children in the system are those in a middle of s legal battle that cannot be adopted until that battle is resolved. So it’s not “orphan” vs “adopted by a LGBTQ couple”, it’s adopted by a cishet couple vs LGBTQ couple, and the latter definitely would seem like getting the short straw given current social context.
I ussually dont like to get into LGB+ shenanigans (specially T&Q) since it allways devolves into slapfighting, virtue signaling and raiding (by both parties btw) , but im gonna risk it by sticking my nose in here and say that you have a really good point in the fact that the kids are getting forced into a political fight thats harasher than what they are prepared for and preferably shouldnt even be involved in and become a target themselves. But i dont think the solution should be banning it althogeter, maybe just having harsher penalties for constant attacks against them for that in particular (specially from adults) and with the children i say that they are still gonna get picked on for being orfaned so thats really not something thats gonna get solved by legislation, but an aspect of the fact that school fucking sucks, period, and the only solution is for schools to enforce protection on children in special circunstances.
But all that kinda goes down the toilet when you realise that child protection services sucks monkey ass and will leave kids with fucking satan if he manages to check enough boxes for the requiremnts to get orphan kids and their goberment paychecks.
As someone who has lived in Poland, this is definitely true for the eastern side of the country. Not sure if a ban is the right solution, but they would definitely get bullied to hell for that if anyone found out.
So cool when folks like you can whip up some computer code for a quick function. Lots of respect for coders, devs, etc…love using the stuff. I know there are endless pathways to learn. I just prefer to stay in my professional bubble (emergency medicine) and enjoy the benefits of those computer language experts.
Although, if I learned how to fix the technical glitches to our digital patient charting…I could go kick the ass out of the donkeys that haven’t done shit about it.
I happened to see this video recently about how shoes affect foot bones. The tl;dr is that the way most shoes are shaped is restrictive around the toes and squishes the foot in an unnatural way that may lead to long-term injury / bone deformations later in life.
Artists, writers, creative professionals arguments on generative AI being copyright infringement is moot. They should simply rally with underpaid third-world AI training (tagging) personel to ask for labour compensation, maybe proposing continuous micropayment for individuals.
I don’t get all the people who are rallying for stronger IP laws over AI stuff. Like that’s possibly the worst solution you could’ve came up with and will just make the already draconian laws even worse.
IP certainly means protection, though it favors big corps than individuals.
I’m all for those creative professionals. I get why people are upset about their work being used without their consent, especially from people who contracted to provide their work. It’s been used to exactly cut such jobs against them.
But to combat the situation tighting IP law doesn’t seem to be the right tool.
If I had more control over the types of ads I saw, I would accept this. Often I’m shown something very unpleasant in order to sell a dumb mobile game or something. If any of them had to follow the same rules many content creators had to, they would never be allowed.
The state of ads right now feels like what if Elsagate videos were mandatory to watch? If I really want to support a creator, I donate to them.
There are actually a few companies that try to fix this type of stuff, like carbon the idea is pretty simple: A small unobtrusive image and caption on a page, one ad per page, no auto playing audio or banners covering content. The company also enforces these rules to make sure that neither page designers nor marketers make things horrible.
I think people don’t even want to discuss options for surveillance online and offline because they never were and don’t actually fear to be victims of violent crimes.
I also think people who say surveillance and police need to be abolished believe (subconsciously) in the “just world” hypothesis or they have main character syndrome and think that bad stuff only happens to people who somehow deserve it.
The kWh is a silly unit. Joule (J) is the one true unit of energy.
Also, common time units suck as much as inches, pounds, feet and whatever nonsense units you Americans still use. Just use seconds with the appropriate SI prefix instead.
Cubic meters and tonnes suck too. Just use kl and Mg instead.
I think the time one is a good unpopular opinion. For example “day” is one of the most common time units there is. I really can’t see anyone advocating for a system that is unrelated to day/night cycle.
If night was to fall, sun was to rise and it wasn’t a new day yet? And the days ended at different times on different days? Absolutely no one would like that and we’d go back to using days almost instantly.
With that issue always in mind, you’re still bound to the earth’s rotation for every time-related issue (and a similar one around seasons also looms, for the earths orbit). And you’re back at square one.
Well, we could always switch to another time unit that uses 1 day as the base unit. Then you would just use md, nd, Gd, Md and all the other prefixes to get to the scale you need. That would be fine for most purposes.
However, the problem is that a day isn’t exactly 86.4 ks, since orbits and rotations are wobbly and messy. If we define the day as a unit today, it won’t be the same a thousand years later. Perhaps the people of the future could use that for common purposes, but scientists would need to use a more precise version that has a crazy litany of decimals at the end. Using the Earth as a foundation for any kind of unit is just asking for trouble in the long run.
Interesting. I think joules are dumb and hate seeing them in games like factorio. I’m sure joules are better in applications that don’t concern the average person but I’m a random idiot not a scientist at nasa. Just show me kilowatt hours so I don’t have to do math in my head. 1 joule is 1 watt second already there’s no point in making things more complicated.
I can see the convenience in the Wh unit, because hours are so common and people prefer to think in terms of hours.
Joules and watts look nicer and are naturally fully compatible with each other. Non-technical people usually get very confused with kW and kWh, so switching to joules would create a clearer distinction between energy and power. Many energy production facilities also give their annual energy production in MWh per year, which mixes two time units in the same package!
Let’s make a shitty unit trade. We’ll change all watt hour units to joules in exchange for completely banning bits per second as a unit of bandwidth speed. Converting megabit per second to the actually usable unit of megabytes per second in my head is far more infuriating than any amount of joule shenanigans. Any takers?
Oh, I totally forgot about the chaos surrounding bits and bytes. Personally, I don’t really care which one we use, as long as its unified. Mixing and matching Mb/s for transfer and MiB for storage is truly infuriating. Yes, even the prefixes need to be unified.
I don’t make programs in low level languages, such as assembly, so I don’t really see the benefit of using base 1024 prefixes. If anyone here can convince me why non-binary prefixes are great, I’m listening. As far as I’m concerned, prefixes should be based on 1000, just like in SI.
Having 8 bits in a byte is just another historical relic, and I see no reason to keep it. Systems have changed many times since the adoption of that term, and back in the early days a single character of text took exactly 8 bits. I guess that was important at the time, but why would it be today? Programmers out there can tell us why we need to have two units for data.
Maybe it’s because I’m used to kWh, but kWh is very useful in terms of electricity usage and when designing electric systems to hooked onto a common grid, especially things like building wiring and stuff.
Very true, spoken as someone suffering from ADD. I’m already highly motivated by positive reinforcement: if something is in any way technical, or hierarchical, or requires learning new skills to master, I am all over it like gravy on biscuits. It isn’t hard for me to “trick” myself into enjoying a topic I might have previously decided was not worth my time.
However, if I really just don’t like something at all, or if it is something that isn’t really motivation-based but requires schedule-keeping (maybe some random deadline at work), it’s very hard for me to naturally elevate it to a high priority in my head. The things I enjoy come first, even at the expense of logic or self-preservation sometimes. If there is a strong negative motivation applied to the goal, like “So-and-so person is going to stop talking to you if you don’t do this”, that can be just the push I need to override my damn brain.
I agree if your objective is to get any given thing done to any completion percentage and any quality is acceptable. But I struggle to see how this management strategy would work, for eg, in a marketing department.
“WRITE ME A NEW SET OF EMAILS OR ILL PULL OUT YOUR FINGERNAILS” would probably work once, but that person would likely probably quit by the end of the day.
Unless you’re advocating that all jobs should be slavery?
Most jobs already feel that way. I’m not really talk about punishment from a boss but the impacts on you life/health over the long term if you just decide to not do the work.
What does your life look like if you decide to not pursue a big goal?
Couldn’t disagree more, but I think we may have hit on a natural split in what motivates people. I like goals and metrics. When a doctor told me I needed to lose weight or I’d become diabetic, that wasn’t what motivated me at all. In fact, the anxiety that came with that potential outcome manifested itself as super low-energy depressive episodes. That terror actually got in the way of me doing the work. What worked for me was deciding “Okay, I’m gonna get a whiteboard calendar, and mark every day that I do strength training in blue, meditation in green and cardio in pink. Then at the end of each month I’m gonna add them up and see what my totals are.” First month, my goal was to do each of them 3x/week. That felt like a pretty far off goal for someone who is basically sedentary, and I didn’t quite get there the first month. But getting close made it feel possible. Then every time I met a goal I raised it by 2. I eventually got to the point I’m at now, where I work out and meditate 5-6x/week and it’s an odd day where I don’t do at least one of those three activities. My blood glucose and A1C are down to normal, I finished my first 5k in 42 minutes flat and am training to get that time down into the 30s, and I can deadlift my weight and nearly bench press that much as well. I feel better, I look better, my office job is less oppressive because when I get frustrated I can just break out the Mental Health Rocks and work some of that energy out. All of it from positive motivation, even when there was actually a pretty strong negative motivation inasmuch as I really like my eyeballs and feet. Now that I’ve reached my goals wrt how often I work out, I’m setting quantifiable goals for how hard I work out.
I suppose I’m not really disagreeing with you. It’s obvious that this is what works for you, and I can’t negate your lived experience with mine. But what I’m saying is that not everyone is motivated the same way.
For this site? The overwhelming majority of Marxist Leninists are more likely to be “educated” in economics by finding sources that support their preconceived beliefs than being educated in formal settings that would discourage such an anti-scientific approach.
Basically if your understanding of economics ends before or does not include the empirical revolution in economics which takes place in the 1960’s then you likely aren’t well informed on the subject in any regard.
Much of Marxist literature is still taught in universities because it’s in fact been such a good analysis of our economic system that it’s still relevant to this day
That simply is not true. Marx’s sociology and anthropological work has some value but the vast majority of Marx’s views on economics are no longer seen as useful, accurate or relevant. Bringing up Marx as a source us like bringing up Adam Smith, sure they wrote highly influential works but what was correct has been incorporated into the classical literature and what is incorrect, such as the labor theory of value, is taught as an example of previously held incorrect beliefs.
Very little of what Marx did is relevant to today’s economics because the focus is so incredibly different.
No, economics as a subject writ large in all nations has moved past Marx. Marx was a human and as such he was wrong about some things. Why would we cling to dated material that we know is not correct because a bunch of fanboys, who aren’t academics, think we should?
Do you think physics should hyper ficus on Newton or might you concede we have learned things since then?
While that is true, it also applies to libertarian capitalists.
Most people don’t understand economics. Because economics isn’t that sexy to be honest.
And it doesn’t help that a lot of the popular economists that one encounters in the mainstream (like Krugman,.Friedman or Mankiw) absolutely and actively engage in disinformation (which they consider education) in the service of their own political biases.
I think Economics Explained is one of the better YouTube channel brining mostly unbiased economics to a mainstream audience.
I think you need to clarify what you mean by libertarian capitalists as their delusionary states are a sliding scale. The AnCap is even less realistic than any Marxist and much more likely to be motivated by shitty behavior (Marxists might not be correct about everything but their hearts are in a good place), whereas the neoliberal is likely confused about how the impacts of free trade can harm the local working classes and might not be as beneficial as classic economics suggests.
Krugman, Mankiew et al are often writing opinion pieces and those should be seen as such.
I don’t think economics should be discussed in any format other than print as it is too hard to check the work on a video.
If you think Economics should only be discussed in print, you might as well buy an Ivory tower and lock yourself up there.
Economics affects people directly through economic policy, so unlike say anthropology or linguistics, people will have strong public opinions and debates on economics.
Also, to add as an agreement/slight counter point, I find a lot more of the users here that I would believe as actually educated and insightful about political topics like communism then most other sites, which is a nice change.
It also allows for people to be mind blowing assholes to others, which totally ruins any credibility whatsoever, which i guess ultimately adds to your original statement.
You are finding a lot of Marxists who are educated in Marxism but not necessarily modern communist/socialist thought as sadly many of the Marxists I see are the anti-scientific types that search for proof of their conclusions.
We should build an A.I. overlord so that it replaces our current leadership like politicians and the entire market bussines specially the top, so that it can exploit resources in a reneuable way that is already possible right now but you know… lobying and fucking oil companies, and redistribute them to the population in a just way incluiding but not limited to food (nice food not rations), housing, medical services, psichological support (but the real one not the human resources bullshit), entertainment and internet access, and eventually be able to make custom orders like custom furniture, video game capable aparatus, modifing your house, travel and even swimmimg pools and ice cream. Besides i think our survival hinges on us making something about our leadership since there is at least one major problem that we need fixed that our current leadership is not gonna solve i.e. golbal warming, since they rather sell their souls and their people to the oil companies, and replacing them (even with a coup) is just gonna put more corruptible people that are gonna get bought out by some other straigth up cartoonishly evil entity, or they themselves turning into it or being overtrown by it, and destroying the entity would require a massive effort and thats not happening without mass destruction and even if it is destroyed another one will rise up from the chaos caused by the anti corporate war. So the sollution would be a singularity level A.I.
The problem is there’s no way to make an unbiased AI. Every techbro who asserts that it is possible seems to be the guy that has never assessed their own bias.
Thats why it should be in a singularity level, so that it can go fix those biases if they are ever present, and i dont wanna sound intolerant or anything, but i think bigger issues that lead to biasses having a bad effect would be solved before hand, like scarcity, amd i dont know if i mentioned this but it should be abble to give psicological treatment (the real one not the human resources bullshit) so that crime would be mittigated as much as possible since everyone could be as hedonistic as morally possible and be lucid and aware of it so that they pursue more fullfiling activities like self betterment or other things like art, science, exploration, philosofy (yess really), making friends and meting people or being with their loved ones. I mean something like the novel series The Culture. And besides tech bros are asholes, and if a corporation whants to make it will probably end up as skynet or that ill simply perpetuate the system we have now, so it would be preferable that it be made kinda like the way linux was made and i wanna say bitcoin but theres a high chance that that was made by shadow forces so nah. Just so that you know what our leadership does for climate change, check this out.
We should build an A.I. overlord so that it replaces our current leadership like politicians and the entire market bussines specially the to
This is the stuff of nightmares and I hope it never happens.
We are abysmally far away from having the ability to create a general AI, and we risk that the current “IAs” are put in control for people like the inept computer engineer in War Games who put Joshua aka WOPR in control of a system without fully understanding it (because it was completely outside of its model).
I didnt mean language models or a machine learning program, i meant a full on artifical inteligence, singularity type shit, beneficial of course, although imo something on the level of what we have could do, hell, something even les sofisticated could work as long as its well thought out.
We are not there yet in the singularity level , but my main gripe is how easly corruptible the human spirit is and how positions of power atract terrible people that shouldnt probably even be allowed to own pets, and the fact that the chain of command is made unintentionally (or intentionally) in a way so that these type of people can prosper more easly.
My main gripe is how easly corruptible the human spirit is and how positions of power atract terrible people that shouldnt probably even be allowed to own pets, and the fact that the chain of command is made unintentionally (or intentionally) in a way so that these type of people can prosper more easly.
My idea for the A.I. is to solve those problems, but there are probably other ways to solve them, i myself cant really think of one that doesnt involve a higer being or higer inteligence guiding humanity to the future.
No mater what political/economical system you come up with it will always end up with any form of corruption that ends up spreading and causing more harm than order, my go to example for this would be global warming and big oil lobying the world leaders into submision while defilling the planet, and anny type of solution that gets legislated and enforced is always directed toward the general poulation and not big corporations. You could argue that its because of rampant late stage capitalism, and it is, but im pretty sure simmilar situations could happen even under a comunal anarchick hippie cult if someone that wants power mannages to get enough followers and gaslight most of the cult into accepting that the will of the leader is divine and they should focus their resourses unto building guns to force the will of the leader into other people inside and outside of the cult, and the remaining resourses into making the leaders favorite pies that only the leader can eat even if everybody else starves. Of course this is a ridiculous example, but i think my point gets across.
The problem lies in how we humans socialice or at least on how do we govern ourselves. Carisma wins popularity contests over anything else, and popularity wins against any other type of reasoning, and power always corrupts and you end up at best with an uncaring governmet that only cares for itself and its aperances than for the wellbeing of the people, and carisma channeled throught propaganda and mindgames makes sure people stay on their lane.
I think that if a benefic entity can game this system but also actually have our best interests in mind, we could achieve something close to heaven on earth, and probably other planets to.
Politics are pretty bleak. They will not be solved by dreaming of nonsense about singularities, omnibenevolent AIs, “heaven on Earth”, or colonization of other planets. Most likely nothing of that will ever happen.
Alrighth then, gonna stop argue mode and just gonna go full ad homniem cuz you dont seem to budge.
Whats the dumb point of just answering then hu? You dont refute anything i tell you you just say “no cuz its dumb and i hate you” whats the point then? Why is it bad to believe that shit? Cuz you say so? At least tell me why you think it will never exist, because of some technicality in A.I. development that i dont know about or because it wont be possible to replicate a thinking brain no mather what is made of or something dumb like that humanity should control their own future no matter how fucked up leadership is. We are at a point in human progress where imposible shit its becoming the norm now, like 3d printed organs, language models, drones, etc. What should we do if not look for ways to make peoples lifes better applying or making this tech better? Just up and go die from climate change? Are you one of those people that think the world would be better if we all die? I bet you might even be an anti natalist, you know, those kids that say we shouldnt bring any more humans into the world cuz “linkin park song lyrics (Crawling throught mu skiiiiiiin)”. Grow up m8, humanity will go on whatever you like it or not and more impossible shit is gonna be created and released to the public.
Sorry for this but you kinda drove me nuts with your indiference.
Edit: Taking a small peek at your profile made me realice its even more of a waste of time to even try to have a conversation here. But well what did i expect answering to a 2 month old post.
I’ve never encountered a pizza shop that’s using fresh pineapple for its hawaiians, nor is the pizza exposed to the enzyme long enough for it to have any real effect. When I do pineapple chicken I marinate thinly sliced chicken breast with pineapple for like 4 hours and it definitely has a tenderizing and satinizing effect, but the half hour between it going on your pizza and the pizza going in you isn’t time enough for any real effect.
Any uncooked pineapple should have the enzyme in it. Pineapple juice is full of it. If you consume a lot of raw pineapple your mouth and throat will tingle as the enzyme eats you. However it only needs to go above 40 deg C for the enzyme to denature, you don’t even really need to cook it.
pizza places use canned pineapple though, and cooking is by necessity part of the canning process.
scholarworks.alaska.edu/…/Eaton Victoria.pdf - this article says 70c but I’m sure that it’s a time/temperature curve just like cooking to destroy bacteria is (incidentally, that also works by denaturing proteins)
The one I work at buys the pineapple bits bagged straight from Dole but yeah we aren’t slicing up pineapples in the back lol. They’ve already been processed
I’ll do you one better: pineapple on pizza is fine but hawaiian pizza is the wrong way to do it. add jalapeno and red onion to a pizza with pineapple and fatty pork and you’ll never go back to a pizza shop hawaiian.
I can respect someone’s right to author their own last chapter, but the issue seems to be that along with the physical decline that can come with age or infirmity is often a mental decline that makes consent an extraordinarily sticky wicket.
that’s the glue on the wicket: if someone hasn’t made the decision by the time they lose capacity are they doomed to suffer? also, how do we determine exactly how much loss of mental function has to occur before someone loses the capacity to make this decision? Who gets to decide? The government doesn’t have an interest but is also going to have to try to make a one-size-fits-all determination of mental function that will almost certainly be at least a little bit wrong for every specific case. The family, assuming there is one, knows the individual more personally and can speak to what they would want but might also have an interest in killing someone off prematurely in order to get an inheritance or be rid of a financial burden.
Yeah or you’d risk families with bad intentions making the decision for them. Luckily the legal framework for capacity to make decisions is already well established it’s used in healthcare regularly already.
I used to be all for this program but I don’t think it was implemented with good intentions. Instead of fixing the country they are just telling us to kill ourselves. They know that anyone who kills themselves is just going to be replaced by 10 immigrants anyway
I think I understand what you’re getting at but just keep in mind that there are two sort of separate discussions in regards to that.
The WHO and the health organization of various countries are usually pretty specific in their definitions. The “public health emergency” of COVID is over because:
There is no longer a need for a coordinated international effort.
The population is no longer largely at risk due to vaccinations/immunities.
The mortality rate has dropped significantly.
But I don’t think anyone would deny that COVID is here to stay on a global scale. It’s just that the health systems of most countries are now equipped to manage it without all of the lockdown precautions.
I get where you’re coming from, but only the first bullet point is factory accurate.The active strains have escaped immunity due to rapid and unmitigated mutation.
Add comment