Pirating of otherwise unavailable media.
-
Drugs
-
Prostitution
-
Abortions
-
Bypassing DRM for personal use
How is that illegal?
Ask the record/movie/book/game companies that want you to buy the same content every time they come out with a new medium for you to consume it
Sex work.
Sex work is real, dignified work that contributes to civilization.
Unlike being a landlord.
I’ve definitely been fucked by a few landlords, but it’s not a service I’d recommend to anyone else.
Taking food when you have no food
Drugs.
Euthanasia. Access to free and humane end of life services should be a fundamental human right for all adults everywhere.
gender affirming care for trans children
To play some devils advocate here, this is still a very sensitive subject. Not because the kids don’t have a right to that care but because kids are kids, and things can change drastically for them as they grow. For every kid who genuinely needs that care, there is another who doesn’t but is searching to discover themselves. Some forms of affirming care are safer than others, but others can have drastic life long effects on growing people. Unfortunately there are also some parents that will force care (or lack thereof) on kids in one way or another.
I think that therapy and understanding should be promoted heavily for kids so they can identify and understand how they feel and why, but blanket statements are challenging because they can be very easily spun (ex. All the “the left wants to force drugs on kids” bullshit that gets spouted.)
Not saying that I’m right or that you’re wrong, but I think this is a discussion that still has to be opened/presented further for it to gain traction in the public eye.
Excuse me, Mx. “Devil’s Advocate,” but nothing you said is contradictory to/incompatible with providing gender affirming care to children. In fact, therapy and understanding/acceptance are a major part of that.
The biggest issue I have is that trans children’s needs and well-being are thrown under the bus to save the small minority of genuinely confused cis people. Given the current state of their rights, any argument for waiting until some more idealized treatment arrives is an argument against trans rights and our entire community’s well-being.
Give children the right to buy alcohol too.
More give doctors the right to treat their patients
Escorts
Actual marriage equality.
For adults, literally everything that doesn’t directly hurt other living things.
Kids 16 and under accessing social media. Responsibility should be on their parents and household, not the government.
Gonna have to disagree with you for two reasons:
- it’s not actually illegal (except in Australia soon I guess)
- when everyone’s a user, the social aspect makes it practically impossible for single households to impose limits without making their child a pariah
Fair, not yet but the bill has passed and it’s now being written into law in Australia, where I live. I agree that it’ll be difficult for the child to be the odd one out if most people in society are doing something that they’re banned from doing at home but when has that stopped society from progressing? Why teach to cave into societal pressure when you can apply critical thinking as to why it’s being limited in the first place?
Sleeping in a car that you own.
I think there should be restrictions on where to park for this, but in general people found sleeping in cars should be protected by the law against theft and harassment.
The shady part is that most people who get bothered for sleeping in their cars is because they’re doing it somewhere on private property.
Other than that, fully agree.
I don’t think it’s illegal, but rather where you park can make it illegal.
In the US, it depends on the State or municipality. I’ve slept in my car plenty of times while traveling, although it was often in parking garages and out of sight, so maybe I just got lucky. It will really depend on how uptight the town or store manager is. I’ve heard that RVs are generally welcome at Walmarts, so I’d like to heard the logic on why RV are ok to sleep in but not cars.
Restrictions on where you can park
Nah fuck that noise. This is how you let them corral you into slums.
Park where you want. Out front of parliament, the prime minister’s house, on the street out front a billionaires house, wherever. If they don’t like it, them they should fix it.
parks perpendicular to the flow of traffic across the California 101 freeway
Well, I mean, someone’s evil ex shouldn’t park in front of their house. And people should not park for a nap in a handicap spot. And not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone’s lawn.
But yeah, basically any place where parking is allowed, sleeping while parked should be allowed and protected.
All of those places already have laws preventing those. Don’t need a special one for no sleep in car in those instances
Camp anyplace you need to camp. Keep your car where it belongs.
A public parking lot or parking space seems to be a good place for a car.
It is. It is a good place to park. That’s not what is being discussed.
Having a place to live is an unmitigable human need. Having a car is not. A car left too long on public land should become a shelter for OTHERS.
I think you might have missed something in your zeal, which is fine. We need more passion about such things. Just directed the right way.
But the point being made before your comment was that anyone should be allowed to sleep -at least in their own- car, which you seem to agree with. And any public parking places where a car can sleep should be fine for a human to also sleep within said car, which you also seem to agree with.
This isn’t about having a car or not, and its not really about sleeping in a car you find, it’s about how it’s used if it is owned by the person who wants to use it that’s being discussed. So if someone already owns a car and wants or needs to live out of it, we can agree that’s ok (everyone involved in this thread is agreeing here). And if there’s a place that is appropriate for cars to be whether anyone is in them or not, that place should be fine with people sleeping as well. (Pretty sure everyone is agreeing with that, too)
So, everyone agrees, yay! No need to condescend when everyone agrees with you :)
If you want to expand the topic to shelter wherever you find it, that’s a great conversation to have. It’s just not actually the one being had.
A car being used as a place to live becomes a need for the owner of said car.
Sleeping anywhere. It should be illegal to wake somebody up, unless there’s reason to believe they require medical intervention.
Waking someone up being illegal is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard
It is illegal to wake up children who are napping in childcare. Sleeping is a fundamental need, and waking somebody is akin to grabbing their sandwich and throwing it on the ground.
Waking up an adult is really different from waking up a kid. It should only be illegal if it’s being done repeatedly and purposely to someone who’s just sleeping and not at the detriment of anyone else. (Unless they asked them too)
I mean sure there are specific instances where waking somebody makes sense. On transit if you know their stop or the end of the line. If they are in danger. If they are covered in vomit or if they wet themselves. But otherwise, you can’t leave it to law enforcement to make humane decisions so don’t give them the choice.
Just imagine like a really nice town and an old retired guy who fell asleep on a park bench with a good book. Not in danger, not bothering anyone, don’t wake him.
The same dignity applies to a junkie who is passed out on the lawn. This could be his only quality sleep in the past 20 hours. You don’t know if somebody asleep has narcolepsy. You don’t know how much they need it. But they do need it or they’d be awake.
Again it’s a need not a want. Deprivation of sleep is a torture technique. Police officers are using it legally without repercussion right now. I’m saying, it should be considered a form of assault and/or harassment under the law. It is an act of violence. And it’s not right.
I mean, in the examples you gave it would be hard to tell the difference between them sleeping and having a medical emergency. If I saw some junkie looking dude unconscious on his lawn I would probably check on him. If you fall asleep in a public place it shouldn’t be expected of other people to not wake you.
Agreed. Hope you got room in your bed cuz I’m joining you tonight.
If you make it through the door, and you manage to fall asleep, I won’t kick you out until you wake up.
Instead of being robbed and harassed by the law? Agreed.
That’s what I’m going for, yes.
Weed (not legal in all states)
Most hallucinogens (at least for medical or supervised use)
Being trans (lotta states trying to ban me)
Being gay (they’re probably next)
Abortion (many states ban this now)
Free healthcare (not technically illegal, per se)
Being homeless
Polyamory (not technically illegal afaik, but there are a lot of legal benefits that married couples get which aren’t extended to polyamorous relationships due marriage being restricted to couples only)
The list goes on because while there are many basic things that aren’t technically illegal, the system is set up in a way to fuck you because of the required profit motive behind offering basic necessities in a capitalist society.
The first five you listed are all one thing: bodily autonomy. We each have the right to do to ourselves whatever the fuck we want.
We really need a constitutional amendment in the United States to explicitly protect bodily autonomy
Not in the US we don’t lmao.
Polygamy seems like a way to have dysfuntional families and kids that suffer from ptsd
As someone with experience in poly relationships, (gently) you know not of what you speak. I’m merely a data point, but there is proof behind it vs ‘seems’ and assumptions.
deleted by creator
Why?
Let’s break the matter in two parts:
if the adults involved in such a relationship are all informed and consenting, no harm is done to anyone. No one has the right to interfere or comment on those people way of life.
If, eventually, there is the decision to have children, the chance of them growing in a dysfunctional home is as high as any other.
The family may be unconventional but it does not imply nor it is a given it is unable to properly care for children and pass down values of good individual and social behaviour.
-
I do not agree that people in such kind of relationship are any worse for each other than in normal case. At least if they entered it knowing that it’s something that works for them. So i won’t dispute this.
-
About children tho…isn’t it actually proven that children need designated father and mother figure? I know of few people who didn’t have father figure and they are all kinda damaged. Though probably such family could simply designate two main guardians and treat rest as close aunts and uncles…so dunno, maybe a moot point.
Are all orphans or children of single parents unbalanced? I can’t put much credit to that claim. The same with children of same sex couples.
Uncommon life and family arrangements have existed since humans are humans. That is why all societies have edicts on what “normal” relations are and why deviations from the norm have been so persecuted throughout history.
Yet…
China has an ethnic group where one woman has several husbands. The children stay with the mother, while the men have the role of providing for the household. Suffice to say it is hard to know which man conceived which child, so they are colectively considered fathers to all children.
In Africa and the Arabian peninsula it is common fare for one man to have several wives and where there is that tradition all women are addressed as mother by all children.
Again in Africa, there is a tribe where children are raised, from very young age, by their uncles and aunts, away from the parents.
The first time I read about it, what came to mind was two brothers or sisters exchanging children, like a sort of perverse hostage situation: “you raise mine, I raise yours, nobody kills the other!”
Yes, I have a strange mind.
Divorced couples. Remade families. Same sex couples. Adoptive parents and foster families. Non standard families, whatever that may mean. And then we have the “really” out there arrangements, like poliamory. How about nudists? Or hippies?
So what?
Growing up, there was this family in my street that was composed of two couples, where each woman had given birth to a child of each man. The four lived as a small community, where all children address both men as father and all women as mother.
None of them grew up “fucked up”. Or did, only just as much as anyone else.
I admit I lack the ground to stand on here, so I’ll back off. Most of my experience is more of me and people I know - I know I had sbortcomings and mental problems due to parents divorce, again know few people who were raised withoit father. That’s mostly what influences my view.
However examples you raised are hella interesting, but I also cannot help but wonder how these children grow up compared to 2+1/2+2 family. There are for sure differences - after all even higher amount of children bears high influence - but I wonder what these are. Will look for it later. Thanks for dropping these.
You’re welcome. Always glad to help someone broaden their horizons and ideas. Keep reading and keep thinking and exchanging ideas with others. It’s the best way to evolve as an individual.
No.
-
polygamy and polyamoury are not the same thing. You’re welcome. I often do that with actors, thinking two different people are the same person.
So what’s your thoughts about gay couples with children?
Two consenting adults is fine regardless of gender, the problem with polygamy is that when you have more than 2 people in a romantic relationship, its not gonna be equal.
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
Polygamy often takes the form of a person participating in several separate marriages. Like imagine children of different families sharing Parent A with other families, but with their own Parent B. But Parent A is gonna have a favorite of one of the Parent B. So the other Parent B are gonna get jealous. Its a unstable relationship.
This opinion is based on your extensive personal experience with polyamorous relationships I take it?
I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the ‘norm’, and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our ‘norm’ of monogamous parent couples.
There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.
I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.
You shouldn’t talk about things you clearly don’t understand.
or even know the right words for
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
What are you basing this on?
I disagree that it always is or will inherently become that way. Even two individuals in a relationship often do not function well when a third (a child) is introduced. leading to jealousy, abuse, neglect, etc. When forced to remain in said relationship.
Dumpster diving. Doesn’t matter if it’s food or merchandise. It should be illegal to lock a dumpster or willfully destroy usable goods.
Locking dumpsters is important in some areas so wild life dosen’t get into them. To quote the National Parks service,
“There is a significant overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest humans”.
Most businesses lock the dumpsters because trash service is expensive, and if you don’t lock them people will pull up with a pickup bed full of trash and fill them up.
Dumpster diving laws are more about trespassing and removing liability anyway.
You’ve never had to repeatedly clean trash slurry off of a concrete slab because junkies are terrible people who have no manners. If people could be trusted to not redistribute the trash across the land I wouldn’t mind so much
If capitalism could be trusted not to put valuable items in the trash, it wouldn’t be a problem.
If it’s in the dumpster, it’s garbage.
What you really want is the usable food to not end up in the dumpster in the first place.
If you don’t want Amazon trashing all their returns, don’t buy from them in the first place.
Some stuff is in the garbage because a corporation doesn’t want to devalue the item they’re selling by giving away the same thing for free. Waste is waste. There’s not much difference between cotton garments, and a box of pop tarts, from a resources standpoint.
Ah, so getting things out of the trash could be legal, but making a mess from a dumpster should have consequences
Enforcing that would take a lot more money than a padlock.
A better idea would be to charge businesses for the downstream costs of externalities like waste. Make them self-enforce by making it more expensive to dump recyclable or reusable materials.
