chatokun, chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Even if it is, this explains the joke at least.

You know that’s just gonna sound like “All slaves matter” right?

I haven’t listened to Knowledge Fight for a while because I’m watching my own mental health a bit, but ol AJ has never sounded actually happy for more than an episode or two. Hatred like they have sounds like they sleep well, but they’re fucking miserable too. J.K. Rowling could shut up and just enjoy being rich, but she still has to find someone to hate and hurt. You wouldn’t really hear about a happy person.

Ah, my apologies then. I don’t agree with the parameters the thread OP defined.

Yeah, but that’s the traditional things that are arbitrary. Those decisions weren’t really made by scientific consensus, but more by societal needs and norms. In older times you were also considered an adult earlier because that benefitted society at the time.

As we learn more, and as society and its issues changes, so do these agreed upon lines. It’s less shameful to continue living at home into older ages because housing markets are harder now, and the brain development thing may not really affect work and the like, but some are arguing that it changes the effect of drugs/alcohol/trauma/life long decisions etc.

Whether this could change how we decide if those ages should affect the items you mention are yet to be seen, but keep in mind stuff like Insurance companies finding people under 25 more risky than above 25. Some industry could argue (probably unsuccessfully) that they may need to move it to 32, or people may start suggesting marriage etc should be later than the 20s, etc.

Nah, I’m mostly saying it isn’t black and white. It will have some effect on all layers, but I agree it wouldn’t stop all violence. To take your note about school shootings; yes, many of them are from legally purchased firearms, often a parent or something. Not all of course, so a gun ban would probably reduce, but not eliminate, school shootings. Plus outright bans aren’t the only form of gun control the US hasn’t tried, there are multiple things that can be done to limit without outright ban guns.

They hit you with it. Then hit you again. And again. and again and again and again and again and again and again…

Since Chiropractic medicine was invented in America by a spiritualist quack, I would say trying to use the same name for valid medical practices in another country is the mistake of whoever decided that was ok to do. It’s like saying yes, wizardry is bullshit in America, but in many other countries it’s a valid form of pharmacology. Just call it the valid term that has regulations.

Science does move on. I believe recent studies have pushed the brain development ending date past the previously thought 25 years old.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl6klez226o

This study suggests it lasts until 32, where you are generally a steady adult until 65.

We probably need more confirmation from more studies, but that’s one explanation.

Not making a specific argument for or against your argument, but I’d like to object to this like:

Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.

I’ve seen this argument used a lot, but it’s a broad generalization. You are assuming all criminals are the hardest criminals who will disobey any law, but a lot of law breakers and a lot of gun violence perpetrators are first time offenders, or someone who thinks they can get away with minor things.

A lot of people will do legally ambiguous stuff if there’s a low chance of being caught and punished but wouldn’t put themselves on the line for more heavily enforced things, plus even just the hint of illegality will put a type of social pressure on someone.

Will hardcore criminals still get and use guns? Absolutely. Are all gun deaths perpetrated by hardcore criminals? Absolutely not. Even that annoying brandishing couple at the BLM protests a while back would likely not have had the courage to bring out their weapons were it illegal to do so, since they tended to abuse law and loopholes rather than outright break them. They’re a milder case, but the point works with others who carry for “personal protection” but are a little too trigger happy. Plus stuff like legally owned but carelessly stored etc.

Civic? Maybe they got more expensive while I wasn’t looking, but the Civic is supposed to be entry isn’t it?

CisHet male. I can’t really even imagine Cisphobia harming me. I’m more worried about dying to a blue ringed octopus, and I’ve never even been to Australia.

NAAIIIL!!

Actors make movies and thats it.

That’s the thing, if that’s all they did a little opinion difference wouldn’t matter. I also wouldn’t care. That’s not what they do though, they use their money and fame harm others. He went on Glenn Beck to support his 9/12 movement, was outspoken about being anti-lgbt, and donated money to those causes. Similar to JK Rowling, who some say to just ignore, then she also started donating her wealth to bigoted causes as well.

Assuming rich and famous people’s opinions can’t cause actual harm is just ignorance.

Did you like him on his Alex Jones Infowars appearances?

One? These are pretty common in the greater Atlanta area.

I think I found an additional fertility issue.

Hey, I’ve seen this one before https://youtube.com/shorts/B4APOBUpLAs

Would he be in a bloodstained sweater?

? I have no clue what gender you are, and it doesn’t really matter with my point? I just showed proof that the people being mocked are using the daddy thing themselves, and my Alex Jones example is a prime example of toxic patriarchy, so I’m not sure why you would think I would say it’s separate. Tucker is also a toxic misogynist, and I’m sure some of his jests were a combination of the sexual meaning too. I just said not everyone who uses yes daddy as an insult is doing it in a sexual manner.