bobzer

joined 8 months ago
[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Underage drinking is still more common than it should be,

Sure, but it's significantly lower than legal drinking.

We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn't agree with so it didn't work.

I think you'd find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they're unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Prohibition didn't work for drugs either

I didn't realize it was common for 14 year olds to drink alcohol and take heroin where you're from...

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 weeks ago

"I only let my child smoke crack 3 hours a day"

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

If you set parental controls on your own teen's device, all you're doing is isolating them from their peers and making them the kid with the weird parent who doesn't let them post on tik tok.

Social media isn't what it was when we were growing up. It's designed to prey on them the same way slot machines create gambling addictions.

I'm no puritan but I do truly believe banning kids from social media and restricting teens at a legislative level would be a net benefit for society. Same as alcohol or drugs.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

My bad. After rereading I see I was mistaken, I initially took it as an attack.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

Ban exports and travel into Russia until they leave Ukraine.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

But this isn't really in keeping with the nature of this community

I just want to jump in here to say that you're clearly the one being aggressive and arguing in bad faith.

You've had your ramble about how disgusting US exceptionalism is. Congratulations, everybody in this thread has literally already said this. Nobody disagrees with you. We already know.

OP only made two points:

  1. This flight isn't "been there done that" science, like quite a few ignorant posters above have already said

  2. He explained why NASA, an organization that is made up mostly of people who are probably disgusted with the US administration, are required to say something patriotic on their broadcasts.

So ultimately the question is, who are you actually talking to?

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's not even just wildlife. My sister was attacked by the neighbour's cat while she was playing in our back garden as a toddler. She still has scars under her lips.

People letting their pet cats loose is just as bad as dog owners doing the same.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

People don't have to believe in Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other religious bullshit.

If billions of people want to worship a pedophile, warmongering, rapist, I'll reserve the right to make fun of them.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You said you can't understand the appeal of youths having stupid haircuts when we did the exact same thing in our day.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip -3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

You're implying straightened emo hair or spiked frosted tips and jnco jeans were a timeless look?

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't realize it was a transcript of a video report at first and was like what the fuck is this weird as dialogue between Ratini and Fred.

view more: next ›