Datasets:

minkyungpark

/

SHP_test

like 0

tksj8r

changemyview_test

CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns. Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers. However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL. Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward. He never even had official charges brought against him. The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations. The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there. But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened. If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations. Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence. Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications. They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction. I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out. I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the "well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him". And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone. Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything. But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence? The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of. But I don't really think we should have different standards of "innocent until proven guilty" based on the crime. And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards. But should they be? Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations. But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent. And to reiterate. I'm not saying his accusers are lying. But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal? Absolutely not.

i1t3kbz

i1sc3sw

> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL.... It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich," and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they "operate more often as the prosecutor’s pawn than the citizen’s shield." The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case). If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had "agreed" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws. The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.

There are three things I think we ought to mention about this. First, sexual assault cases are notorious for being difficult. The fact that a grand jury did not decide to move for criminal charges or that people at large are not necessarily convinced by that isn't particularly surprising in itself. It's not difficult to understand, I think. We also want to keep in mind that people can do *bad things* that aren't necessarily *criminal things* and we can judge them on that. Second, the man did benefit from presumption of innocence, that's why he's not facing criminal charges. Besides, there are still 22 civil lawsuits pending, I believe. Third, there are obviously limits to presumption of innocence. It's a legal standard upheld by the court for very good reasons, but you can't expect public opinion at large to abide by it as strictly. It's well understood that the legal system is meant to clear a very high bar, because the consequences are so dire. Most people out there understand that, because of how the legal system is structured, you can do bad things, even criminal things, without ever being convicted in a court of law. While these standards are very good in the narrow context of a courtroom, I don't think they're necessarily practicable in the world at large.

3vyga5

changemyview_test

CMV: The second amendment is not an effective way for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical regime emerging in the United States I hear two primary reasons for people citing the need for individual armament: personal defense and so the citizens can protect themselves from tyranny. I think the notion that the citizens could potentially protect themselves from a tyrannical regime with the military capabilities of the United States is ludicrous. I think the discussion has to start with a few acknowledgements. First, in the scenario I am discussing, the United States military would have to be backing the regime. Tyranny cannot exist without a virtual monopoly on force and a citizens rebellion would not be necessary if the military opposed the regime. In that scenario the military could effectively overthrow the tyrant via a coup d'etat. Second, tyrants act like tyrants. We should expect the tyrannical regime to have minimal regard for human rights and to do virtually everything in their power to crush the opposition. We should expect the regime to show similar levels of restraint as we've seen from other dictators when they have crushed past rebellions, only with the enormously enhanced military, intelligence and surveillance capabilities of the United States. Third, there would be minimal potential for external intervention or assistance. Even in the case of a citizens rebellion, other countries would be extremely wary of arming rebels and potentially starting a devastating war with the United States. With those ideas acknowledged, I fail to see how armed citizens would stand a chance against the strength of the United States military. Assault rifles don't stand a chance against helicopters, drone strikes, tanks and air raids. At best, the citizens could start a guerrilla war, but I have a hard time believing that given the United States' massive capabilities that guerrillas would achieve any substantive victories or gain any momentum. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

cxrsavb

cxrrdxr

I think you *vastly* underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. There are more than 300 million guns in the U.S. And millions upon millions of veterans. And our armed forces only have a couple million soldiers, some fraction of which would undoubtedly defect. Air strikes work against hard targets. There's a *reason* why all wars that anyone wins ultimately come down to soldiers with rifles on the ground. And those soldiers are vulnerable. The armed forces don't actually have enough *ammunition* to kill everyone with a gun, even assuming 100% hits and optimal use of all our bombs. There aren't enough drones (nor is it possible to make enough) to watch for all of the people that would be guerrillas. Nor enough force to protect the ammunition factories without destroying them in the process. Nor the National Guard armories.

I think the Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis would disagree with you regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a determined insurgency.

apk8ur

changemyview_test

CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the "performers". Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health. And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.

eg941p4

eg9aleb

People Approach Dr. Phil to be on their show. He just facilitates. Old time Freak shows used to find people then present them for the world to see. I think this a large distinction.

I don't know "freak shows" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end. This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.

t9pkz0

changemyview_test

CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).

hzvz7nh

hzw23no

Speaking from professional experience, the DSM is a tool whose purpose is mainly twofold. First to use a standard set of diagnostic tools to help accurately diagnose a client and to develop the appropriate treatment plan. Second to use amongst other clinicians so that if a client goes to see multiple clinicians, the treatment regime stays consistent and each clinician doesn't have to start the diagnosis process over and their treatments aren't wildly different. In essence, it's a tool that professionals use to do their job. The fact of the matter is most common people don't even know what the DSM is let alone what it stands for or what its purpose is. The fact that clinically meaningful terms such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar have made it into the general lexicon isn't the fault of the DSM. While I agree that pharmaceutical interventions are overused, especially in the US, the same could be said for general medicine.

The DSM was never intended to be used by people who aren’t practicing psychologists or psychiatrists. Much like medical texts are intended for doctors, the abuse of professional texts by laypeople isn’t the fault of the textbooks, they are usefully for actual professionals. The problem is with armchair amateur psychologists that treat the DSM like it’s a bible when it’s literally amended version to version to best serve the professional community and their patients. What you’re describing sounds more like pathologizing human behavior. It’s typical for someone with a hammer to see a problem as a nail. Again human behavior is hard to correct, even in the professionals we trust to treat our mental health. Still, a flawed system with concrete scientific basis to improve itself is better than no system at all.

pklzob

changemyview_test

CMV: The work-from-home push by white-collar workers will eventually lead to massive outsourcing that will hurt future generations of wealthy western nations. For some generations older than mine, when they were in the workforce there was an abundance of factory jobs that provided millions of people the opportunity to earn a solid middle-class income and provide for their families. As a result of both automation and the outsourcing of labor to countries with cheaper labor, these jobs are all but gone and the middle class is a shell of what it once was. An argument that I've heard in defense of this, is that it allows for these wealthy western nations to focus more of their workforce on higher-paying professional services or white-collar jobs. Even if you assume that that statement is true, I don't see any reason why the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs won't eventually happen to white-collar jobs that can be completed 100% virtually from home. ​ With COVID, many jobs were forced to adapt and at least temporarily adopt a work-from-home setup. Once employees began work-from-home, many realized that there really isn't any reason to come into the office, and now won't consider any jobs that require them to come into the office 5 days a week. I think this will be a good deal for workers in the short term as it potentially gives them a little more flexibility, cuts down on their commute time, and potentially allows them to move further away from the office to a lower cost of living area. But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return? I don't imagine this will be an instantaneous or overnight transition but it's not like people from places where the labor is cheaper are incapable of learning any job that people in wealthy western nations can. That's not to say there won't be any challenges for the outsourced white-collar jobs but the cost savings would likely make the challenges worth it in a lot of cases. ​ So Reddit, CMV - future generations of wealthy western nations will see a similar reduction in white-collar jobs that can be completed virtually, that millennials experienced with manufacturing jobs.

hc4cuw1

hc4f0di

My best argument against this is simply that most outsourced work is done in country’s with very little access to top tier education & without that many of these “white collar jobs” are out of the question for being outsourced.

There was a big wave of international outsourcing in the early 2000s. For some companies it worked, for many it didn’t. Having workers in different jurisdictions, cultures, time zones is very different than having local people who work from home.

v25qi9

changemyview_test

CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff. The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they’re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn’t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it? As well back of house usually isn’t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where’s the outrage? People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn’t have a tipping system is doing just fine? The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It’s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory. >What would change my view Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can’t support themselves OR That tipping is somehow a necessity

iaqldbe

iaqjcdv

you aren't legally obligated to tip and you'll face no legal repercussions for not tipping. In that sense, it is optional. Not tipping in areas for which low income earners depend on tips is morally reprehensible and people will continue to morally condemn and judge you for it. Not viewing you as an immoral person is optional. A service industry that didn't depend on tips is very conceivable. In most if not all of Europe, tips are much less expected. It is reasonable to want to switch from the US system to the European system. It is not reasonable to make some of the lowest wage earners pay for that transition. If you don't like the culture of tipping, you can campaign for laws that don't exempt service workers from minimum wage, and you can boycott restaurants where tips are expected. But, if you, in order to try to change the country to the way you want it to be, decide the way to do that is for you to make no sacrifices at all, and instead inflict that burden on some of the most economically vulnerable, you taint your own cause.

You’re incorrect, the tipping system is propped up by businesses that want to pay their workers sub minimum wage. It’s a loophole where they can pay them less and put the responsibility of paying their workers a “fair wage” more directly onto customers Wait staffs don’t want less guaranteed wages in the hopes their tips might make up for it

z32qlz

changemyview_test

CMV: Telling random people to smile is rude and inconsiderate of their feelings My view is that when people tell others to smile it's often comes from a place of selfishness rather than wanting that person to express themselves how they see fit. People want to see others smile mainly for aesthetic purposes than anything else. When you see someone down the street you have absolutely no idea what trials & tribulations they've faced, their life story, what they are currently going through and so on. So I think it's extremely dismissive to tell someone to put on a mask which is a smile because it personally looks appealing to you rather than actually try to brighten that persons day in any other regards. Like imagine if something tragic just happened to you where you lost your job, a love one got into a car accident or something in which it negatively impacted you. How would you feel if someone randomly came up and told you "smile!". Me personally it would piss me off quite a bit. And on top of that nobody owes anyone anything when it comes to facial expression. How one chooses to express their face has no impact on anyone else's well being. Peoples faces aren't here to make someone else feel better so I feel like telling someone how they should handle their facial expression isn't any different than telling them how they should dress, walk etc. in my opinion telling people to smile comes from a form a narcissism in a sense that you want others to express themselves just for your own personal benefit. Because you find someone smiling more aesthetically pleasing than someone who doesn't look happy. Well what do you guys think?

ixkkcbw

ixjqwmi

Man you must hate professional photographers

i wouldn’t call it rude i would just say it’s kind of uncomfortable. I’ve been told by random men walking in public numerous times things like “smile honey” and stuff and it just made me uncomfortable💀 however in their mind, assuming they’re not trying to b creepy, they’re probably thinking that they made someone who may have been having a bad day feel a little better

b3si2w

changemyview_test

CMV: A non-black person having an afro is not cultural appropriation as a haircut is not culturally exclusive I should preface by saying I would just like to objectively understand the other sides arguments. Recently i was told that by impersonating someone like Bob Ross with an afro, that this is would be cultural appropriation and thus insensitive towards African American. I don't believe this is true because A. He is not African American (the perceived targeted race), B. An afro - or any hair style - should not be intrinsic and exclusive to one single race. This was a hairstyle that was largely prominent in the 70s and 80s. As well, and most importantly, most people regardless of race can physically grow an afro if they grow their hair long enough. I know I can and I'm not black. Should I be frowned upon for growing my hair long naturally, or cosplaying as someone who themselves looks a certain way with no intention of misappropriation and insensitivity towards a particular group? Thanks

ej1uxv6

ej20cdh

Other people definitely have curly hair. But the question is, why call it an Afro if you are not specifically making reference to African Americans or people of African heritage.

Not my argument, but I can try to parrot something back to you. ​ 1) Since the 1960s (and even before then) African-Americans have been penalized for their manner of dress - be it their hair, their nails, their shirts or whatever. Black people have lost jobs, people have lost promotions, due to having "wrong dress". ​ 2) In the modern era, white people can now wear those same manners of dress - without penalty. ​ 3) Being penalized for something, for 60+ years, and then for someone else to do the same thing you did, and receive no penalty - feels wrong somehow. ​ You could argue whether the word which best describes this is cultural appropriation or not - I would personally use the term double standard - but do you at least see what some people are mad about?

hmfypp

changemyview_test

CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery. Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.

fx4x0f7

fx4ya6o

> religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences What...? Where did you get this? Most of those were begun despite religion. Some of them were begun by groups that practices religion but only because the vast majority of people back then practiced religion. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that religion encouraged it. You also forget that a lack of religion isn't .... nothing.... People would still be curious and resources and time would be spent on other things, things that very well (and most likely) would promote curiousity even more. Look at the **core** of religion - it is to accept something as the absolute truth. That is **the exact opposite** of science.

Your whole argument depends on one very unrealistic assumption, and that is that if religion was never a thing or, at least was never as influential as it is, then no one would have paid or incited for technological/scientific advancements; and that is just unrealistic considering how many of those advancements where impulsed by warfare, economic gain, or simple curiosity of, generally, a wealthy person. A clear example of this are the Greeks and Romans, I know that you addressed that too, but you forgot the fact that a lot of the pre-Christian era knowledge was destroyed for contradicting Christian doctrine, not to mention, that again you're assuming that if the church wasn't there no one would have done the same, which is a baseless assumption and imo a very unlikely one at that, giving the advantage that such knowledge could bring.

78j7oe

changemyview_test

CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income. This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes). I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes. I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

dou8j91

douqmpb

I have never really understood the macroeconomics of tax policy, but as a libertarian why would you want the government to generate more tax revenue?

Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb. More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a "tax on the rich" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening. It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks. So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb. We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole "double tax bonus" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.

we5x1a

changemyview_test

CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of "exoticness". It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.

iimf351

ilry7v3

If I accidentally misgendered you by calling you "Miss Eddyshorts" when you’re a dude, or "my boy Eddyshorts", if you’re a woman, would you correct me? I'm a stranger, and it's not intentional. It just may not be accurate. But for argument’s sake, let's say it *doesn't* bother you, and you're cool with accidental misgendering — does that make you NB now? Pronouns aren't the defining factor. I bet you insist on pronouns in some way too. **FTR, you referred to NB folks without using any gendered pronouns throughout this entire post.** So using they/them when you don't know someone isn't that hard, eh?

Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous

hpxtr9

changemyview_test

CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media. ​ ​ The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on. ​ ​ Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.

fxug2av

fxuhm6e

The problem is that wedge issues aren't wedge issues because every politician necessarily makes them a big issue of their campaign. They're wedge issues because they're easily deployed against your opponents and everyone is required to have an opinion on them. Your centrist-populist party guy can run on those popular issues but he's going to be asked about abortion and gun control and trans rights. And the "Mr. Populist won't say his opinion on abortion" headline is worse than just saying an opinion on the issue.

The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*. The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry. Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.

ffc2o9

changemyview_test

CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot. It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.

fjxhm7o

fjxgt3v

Manslaughter requires direct participation in the person's death, so does murder. A more appropriate charge would be criminal negligence. Negligence is the absence of action. You can not convict someone for murder without them actively participating in the death. Unless the parents deliberately infected the child, they took no active part in the death. It was their lack of action which was a contributing factor. On the other hand, negligence has been used to punish circumstances where parents refuse medical treatment for their children. These two Canadian parents were found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of their 14 month old child. They basically refused to take him to hospital, and tried to use various natural remedies, until it was too late. He eventually died of what should have been a treatable infection. They were sentenced to two and a half years in prison. ​ Basically, you can't convict someone of murder or manslaughter for being negligent by taking no action. Murder and manslaughter require you to play a direct role in someone's death. Criminal negligence causing death would be the appropriate charge. ​ That being said, I don't think refusing vaccination merits a criminal approach like this. Edit: For those interested, here is the transcript of the full court judgement for the case mentioned above. Fills in a lot of details. The most pathetic/infuriating part were the searches the parents conducted online: ***"can cabbage leaves cure gangerene?"*** If you search for that, and dont seek medical care, then you are responsible for what is happening to your child in my mind.

Anti-vaxxers are fucking idiots and and recklessly dangerous, BUT they wholeheartedly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are protecting their child. Against a huge conspiracy. If you believed that people were coming to kidnap and murder your child, and the police said they didn't believe it and to forget about it, what would you do? You might improve your home security, you might even attack people you didn't know, who were trying to get close (on their way elsewhere walking past your child) If you had a mental illness and believed this, your actions would likely be the same. But probably should not go to jail for this. People who genuinely are trying to do things which they believe are good, should have a punishment, mitigated by their intent. Anti-vaxxers, though dangerous, should be treated as well meaning idiots. Mandatory vaccination, is the right response.

690tz0

changemyview_test

CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have. He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to "drain the swamp" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did. I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job. What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

dh2t9v6

dh2wp2s

Clarifying question. Do you think losing roughly 20% of your base is a small thing? This is a massive failure for any politician, especially one who can only win by the narrowest margins in the first place.

I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.

pddz0n

changemyview_test

CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions. The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.) But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best. This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can. A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers. Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.

hapo08d

hapqosn

I honestly can't see how AA for race isnt racist. Its literally handing out privileges based on skin color. Economic status is clearly the better option, but america is obsessed with race for some reason.

You seem to misunderstand the goal and history of affirmative action. That's okay. Most people do. The goal is not to create a level playing field. The goal is not to 're-correct' for prejudice. The goal is not even to benefit the "recipients" of affirmative action. **The goal of affirmative action is desegregation** Brown Vs. Board of Ed. found that separate but equal never was equal. If that's true, what do we do about defacto separation due to segregation? We need to have future generations of CEOs, judges and teachers who represent 'underrepresented' minorities. What we ended up having to do was bussing, and AA. Bussing is moving minorities from segregated neighborhoods into white schools. The idea is for white people to see black faces and the diversity that similar appearance can hide. Seeing that some blacks are Americans and some are Africans would be an important part of desegregation. **Affirmative action isn't charity to those involved and it isn't supposed to be** A sober look at the effect of bussing on the kids who were sent to schools with a class that hated them asked that it wasn't a charity. It wasn't even fair to them. We're did it because the country was suffering from the evil of racism and exposure is the only way to heal it. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/06/496411024/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation Affirmative action in schools is similar. Evidence shows that students who are pulled into colleges in which they are underrepresented puts them off balance and often has bad outcomes for those individuals. The beneficiary is society as a whole. AA isn't charity for the underprivileged. Pell grants do that. AA is desegregation. Race matters in that my children and family will share my race. The people that I care about and have the most in common with share these things. This is very important for practical reasons of access to power. Race is (usually) visually obvious and people who would never consider themselves racist still openly admit that they favor people like themselves (without regard to skin color). Think about times you meet new people: - first date - first day of class - job interview Now think about factors that would make it likely that you "got along" with people: - like the same music - share the same cultural vocabulary/values - know the same people or went to school together Of these factors of commonality, race is a major determinant. Being liked by people with power is exactly what being powerful is. Your ability to curry favor is the point of social class. Which is why separate but equal is never equal. So the question is, without the ability for schools to *do* something about de facto racial segregation, how do things change?

fof2q9

changemyview_test

CMV: r/FemaleDatingStrategy is a toxic, hateful sub filled with bad advice and shouldn't be viewed as a positive community on reddit. I'm writing this because while in my experience condemnation of or at least acknowledgement of the toxicity, hatefulness, and bad advice-full-ness of "manosphere" subs or communities focused around The Red Pill, Pick Up Artistry, or Men Going Their Own Way is nearly universal among people who are not in those communities, I have seen a fair number of people who are not r/FemaleDatingStrategy users come to the defense of FDS with comments like "oh they're just focused on helping women not get taken advantage of and ensuring they get the most out of dating, there's nothing wrong with that!" This kind of positive outsider view of FDS culminated in an article the Wall Street Journal published about FDS in which they praised the sub for offering "actually practical advice in the age of dating apps," because "Today’s Tinderella must swipe through a lot of ugly profiles to find her prince," and claiming that "The strategies that FDSers endorse, particularly for online dating, are backed by scientific research" and concluding that "If love is a battlefield, communities like Female Dating Strategy are trying to better arm some of the combatants." I find it very hard to believe that a major publication like the WSJ would ever publish a favorable piece about a community like PUA or TRP the way they did for FDS. I looked. I found a bunch of major publications who dove into why PUA, TRP, and MGTOW are toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice, but none praising them. This double standard maintained by many redditors and apparently by the writers for major news outlets in condemning TRP-like communities but not their female equivalents is, more than anything, what prompted me to make this post. It also means that if your counterargument is anything like "well but TRP is toxic!" it will not change my view on anything, because I agree with that already. To the meat of why FDS is toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice: First it's worth looking at who uses FDS. According to subredditstats.com, r/GenderCritical, reddit's largets TERF subreddit, has a user overlap of 151 with FDS, and is ranked as the most similar sub; r/PinkpillFeminism, arguably reddit's largest and most overt misandristic subreddit, has a user overlap of 482 with FDS, and is also ranked as the most similar subreddit to it. In short, TERFs and misandrists are respectively 151 and 482 times more likely than the average reddit user to frequent FDS; FDS is, therefore, largely populated with transphobes (note it is "female" dating strategy, not "womens" dating strategy) and man-haters. As for hatefulness, FDS maintains a host of dehumanizing terms for men, the most popular of which is "moid," meaning a "man like humanoid," meaning, "something male but not entirely human." Another favorite is "scrote," obviously referring to and reducing men down to their testicles, which can be seen in popular FDS flairs like "The Scrotation," or "Roast-A-Scrote" or "Scrotes Mad." Finally, "Low Value Male" (LVM) and "High Value Male" (HVM), which is a way FDS divides up men, not unlike the famous 1-10 scale many women find so degrading, like cattle, into groups that FDS sees as having something to offer them (height, a six pack, a six figure salary, a nice house, nice car, a large penis, etc.) and those who don't; if you lack those things, you are a "low value" man, according to FDS. So lets just stop there for a moment and recap. Imagine there was a male-oriented reddit sub that had nearly a 150x - 500x user overlap with openly misogynistic and transphobic subs. Imagine they routinely referred to women solely as "non-human female-like creatures," or "vulvas" or "holes" or referred to all women who weren't 120lbs or less with DD breasts and mean blowjob skills and a passion for anal as "low value." Right there I think that would be more than enough to say that this hypothetical sub is toxic and hateful, not deserving of praise. But FDS is also chalk-full of shitty advice. * They make fun of men who are passionate about physical fitness (despite demanding men be fit) * "If we’re not fucking, I don’t want to cuddle. If you’re not taking me out, I don’t want to see you." * They unironically support forced vasectomy * They think men who aren't immediately pushing for sex must have weird-looking or "dysfunctional" penises * They think that men will always treat women in their present exactly like women in their past and shouldn't be given any amount of time to decide if they want a serious relationship with women * They think that men have nothing to offer except money and attractiveness * They think that small penises aren't "normal," are useless in bed, and women shouldn't be with a man who has one * Men are "the fucking worst," "trashy, overly sexual, disrespectful ass garbage," "too timid," "intellectually brain dead," "boring," "uncreative and lack curiosity," "unattractive," "shit as sex," and "negligent." * They think that men should be "instantly" in love with them or they're not worth spending any time on I could go on but I'm getting tired of linking stuff from there. I think you get the idea. The final bit of toxicity and bad advice-nature of FDS took me a while to realize. I'm subbed to a lot of subs dealing with gendered and dating issues: GC, PPF, FDS, TRP, MGTOW, etc. As I said earlier, I regard the male versions of these subs as toxic, hateful, and counterproductive, but one (fairly common sense) thing that they get right is that self-improvement is a major prerequisite in regards to having success with women. Advice like "lose weight, lift, get a sharp hair cut, upgrade your wardrobe, get a high paying job, get a nice car, and develop an interesting and entertaining personality" is a dime a dozen on PUA and TRP-type subs. And it's not bad advice; if a guy isn't having luck with women, it makes sense to conclude there's probably something about him that needs to be improved so he'll have better chances. It took me a while to notice, but FDS is totally bereft of any advice of this sort. They are not self-critical or interested in any true self-improvement. Their view on this is that all women are, by virtue of being women, automatically maximally awesome and desirable and deserving of Mr. Right or Prince Charming and the only "self improvement" required is that women realize this and stop settling for anything less. You will not find, or at least I haven't in like 6mo of being subbed there and *looking,* any posts telling women to work on their appearance or personality in order to help maximize their chances of success in dating. I would argue that this is both toxic and, in regards to dating, textbook bad advice; if you're repeatedly having bad interactions with the opposite sex the most logical thing to do is to examine the common denominator (and also the only thing you really control in the equation - you - and see what you could do improve yourself. FDS skips that step entirely. TL;DR: FDS is a toxic, hateful cesspool and a self-reinforcing echo-chamber of bad advice and should be regarded as such, not praised.

flfdogz

fleu09a

As a woman who dates women, I can confidently say that if I ever tried using those "dating strategies" or that kind of hateful terminology with another woman it would immediately be seen as disgusting toxic behavior. That tells you that it isnt about "dating" at all. Those women are just horrible toxic people who contribute to the overarching patriarchy and gender inequality in society.

So I think that the situation with the WSJ is relatively easily explained. The WSJ is a newspaper with a conservative editorial page, and as such it tends to publish content that leans conservative. Most of the ways in which FDS is toxic/hateful are just it affirming traditional gender roles: things like being trans-exclusionary, saying that men must pursue women, men must pay for dates, discouraging women from having sex for pleasure alone. These things, while toxic, are all attractive to conservatives because they affirm and support traditional models of gender. And conservatives have never particularly cared about gendered slurs (that's mostly a left-wing thing). So it's not surprising to see an essay supporting this group in a conservative-learning paper like the WSJ. On the other hand, the male-focused other groups that you mention do not enforce and support gender roles and narratives. Groups like MGTOW are explicit in their rejection of those roles, but other groups like PUA also undermine them in other ways. This makes these groups unattractive to conservative news media, which is why we don't see papers like the WSJ supporting them. (Both types of groups are of course unpalatable to more liberal media outlets because of the misogyny/transmisogyny.)

7zu6h2

changemyview_test

CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie: 1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to "yield" or be killed is the loser of the fight. In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

duqvwel

duqwqul

Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king. Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?

The film establishes that the one competitor wins the ritual combat when the other either dies or surrenders. T'Challa did neither. That's why when T'Challa returns, he tells Killmonger the ritual combat is not over, since he's not dead. There's not a lot he can do about the fact that Killmonger refuses to continue the challenge. Since Killmonger never technically defeats T'Challa per the rules of ritual combat, he's never the rightful king.

5e0tv7

changemyview_test

CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me. I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling? I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman. I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.

da8u423

da8t7i6

I bet if you got inside the minds of all your friends, I bet they wish they could be as smart, determined and as motivated as you. Have you considered how different you and your friends will be ten or 20 years into the future. Do you know what percent of all people get into a PhD program? Do you know what percent of those people are black and female? I believe you are one of the very few, and you should be very proud of everything you've done so far and all the great things you'll be able to accomplish with your brain. I wish you luck in all of your future endeavors and I hope you find what you are looking for. Semper Fidelis.

You can't force yourself to want what others want in pursuit of normality. Accepting yourself and your desires is what you need to work on - which may include seeing a therapist and it's not because you are a freak, more people could use it than most people realize. Many people have inner lives that you just don't see, as they don't see yours, and people aren't always as happy as they seem with their seemingly normal lives. If you pursue normal, you'd be amongst those people just living a boring life and hating it inside. This also means accepting that yeah, maybe you won't be attractive to some men because you've taken up a career that isn't seen as feminine. But it's not about how many men you're attractive to, because it's not going to be fun living with one that wouldn't be able to handle whatever interests you have anyway. If anything it's good to filter out the ones who are wrong for you so that you find those who are right. Acting normal and giving up on your own genuine interests isn't going to help with that. It's a recipe for disaster - I've seen these kinds of couples in my family, you really don't want to be like them.

qe4x5l

changemyview_test

CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say "I identify as a woman", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole). So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https://www.google.com/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)

hhqo6a7

hhqoc8a

I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.

Arent there are already protective units within most prisons for vulnerable prisoners? Also the stat about trans offenders is pretty worthless given the sample size is so tiny

tk4wti

changemyview_test

CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn’t be annoyed. With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking. I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn’t as sturdy, I’m worried if it didn’t work properly someone is going to barge in. There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don’t hear anything, that’s when you try the door. There’s no reason someone shouldn’t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.

i1o6r2a

i1o41we

I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That’s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce “I’m shitting in here!” It’s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don’t have to.

I mean, it comes down to an assumption that whoever's in there would've locked up. They aren't jiggling doors to try and catch someone with their pants down. There's always the chance that whoever it is has poor hearing and knows they wouldn't hear an "Occupied!" Or they were operating on autopilot and forgot to knock. Or they didn't realize it was a single-room restroom and thought they were entering a multi-stall one. I find in general that when I get pissed off about stuff like this it has more to do with my mental state than the rudeness of people around me. Think of it as an exercise in extending patience and empathy to strangers. Staying zen when someone jiggles the handle will build that muscle so you can have patience when you need it, like when dealing with kids or driving in New York.

61f3hs

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: I heard that recycling plants use magnets to sort aluminium from the rest of the rubbish. How, when aluminium isn't magnetic, does this work?

dfe2lab

dfe2xpw

Everything is magnetic in a strong enough field. Even this frog

In a word, electromagnetism. You're probably familiar with electromagnetism, it's creating a magnetic field by running current (in other words, moving electric charge) through a conductor. You can make a simple electromagnet at home to show that this works. The opposite also happens, when you move a magnetic field across a conductor it will induce current. This is how we generate most electricity: steam from burning coal, water from a dam, or wind is used to rotate magnets past coiled wires. So, now, what happens when you try and move a magnet across a piece of aluminum, which is conductive. As the magnet – and its magnetic field – move, it creates electricity (specifically called eddy currents) inside the aluminum. These currents, in turn, create a magnetic field, and this magnetic field opposes the motion of the magnet. This can be used then, to separate metal from non-metals. By rapidly moving magnets (or using a quickly changing electromagnet), conductive materials are induced to move, and a setup is made where metal objects will be thrown forward, and non-metals fall from gravity. This, then, is the eddy current separator.

p29xkn

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures?

h8imldv

h8in3up

They can. But it’s very expensive procedures. Depending on the country you live in, it may not be covered by health insurance. Most people don’t have that kind of money.

>Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures? Any surgical procedure carries serious risks for the life and general health of the patient. Liposuction is even on the more dangerous spectrum and the resulting trauma for the body has serious side effects for the patient down the line. You never "just" receive a surgical procedure. It's **always** the very very very last resort for anything. Not to mention that obesity is a symptom, not an underlying condition. Removing body fat does not change the eating/exercising habits or the socioeconomic circumstances of the patient and will therefore not have any health benefits.

8gc6vv

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why does terrific mean good and terrible mean bad while both horrific and horrible mean bad?

dyahg2p

dyahea5

It's usually a good bet to google {the word} etymology when you're not sure why a word is what it is. A complete answer from the first result: >The meaning of terrific has actually changed over time. According to EtymOnline: >1660s, "frightening," from L. terrificus "causing terror or fear," from terrere "fill with fear" (see terrible) + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Weakened sensed of "very great, severe" (e.g. terrific headache) appeared 1809; colloquial sense of "excellent" began 1888. >So terrific started out on the same lines as horrific, but then gained a positive colloquial sense in the late 1800s. The phenomenon in which a previously bad word takes on a good connotation is discussed here, in which it is called amelioration. >Amelioration (which has occurred for terrific, wicked, luxury) is a type of semantic change. While it is unclear what precisely happened to terrific, there are a few ways in which this change can occur: >Linguistic forces >Psychological forces >Sociocultural forces >Cultural/encyclopedic forces >You can read more about it here. It has been suggested (though there is little proof) that terrific became "good" because of an association with the popular media via King Kong. Other than this theory, though, it is clear that terrific underwent some kind of semantic change between the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1930 Popular Science was still using the term to mean something "frightening", and by the 1940s it was used mostly to mean "good".

Ahoy, fellow redditor. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. Why is horrific == horrible, but terrific =/= terrible? ^(_9 comments_) 1. Explain like I'm five years old: Why do both "terrible" and "horrible" mean something bad, but "terrific" and "horrific" have two completely different meanings? ^(_12 comments_) 1. How come the words 'terrible' and 'terrific' have exactly opposite meanings, whereas 'horrible' and 'horrific' means the same? ^(_18 comments_) 1. Explain how English words can seem to be so similar, yet be near opposites: terrible vs. terrific; victor vs. victim; awesome vs. awful etc. ^(_4 comments_)

6hzpw1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: In the song "Taxman" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?

dj2iu2j

dj2hif1

Why were taxes so high? World War II. All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow. That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years. So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody. Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest. To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners. Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war. Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's. Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War. And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels. So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt. We just don't wanna. Were taxes that high sustainable? Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.

Its important to note that not all the income of a top earner was taxed at 95%. Income taxes usually work by brackets. Example with made up figures: Your first $18,000 is taxed at 10%, then $18,001 to $75,000 is taxed at 15%, etc. In the U.S., the highest bracket currently is ~39% starting at ~$418k, so only income above 418k actually gets taxed at the highest rate. I assume it works/worked like that in the U.K. too, where only income above a certain amount was taxed at 95%. I wanted to point out tax brackets because I've run into so many people who don't realize that they're a thing. As far as if it was sustainable...¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I have a feeling political ideology will drive the answers in here because economics is hard and confusing and usually doesn't give clear cut answers. edit: fixed some typos. Rushed this answer then jumped in the shower so I didn't do any proofreading.

yht5gr

explainlikeimfive_test

Eli5: Why does ceramic break tempered glass so easily.

iufnsaz

iufpv5m

Tempered glass is under very high internal stress from the process of cooling it rapidly. Ceramics are harder than glass so the impact of the two mostly transfers the force to the glass which causes the stress of the internal glass to exceed its ability to hold its structure. AFAIK.

Ceramic is very hard. Not in the general, colloquial sense of hard, but in the Mohs Hardness Scale. That scale measures whether or not something can scratch something else. Diamond is the hardest on this scale - not because you can't break diamond. Diamonds are pretty brittle, you can easily crack or shatter them with a hammer. But you can't *scratch* them. Tempered glass is made by putting the glass in tension. You cool the glass so that the outside shrinks, compressing the still-hot inside. When the inside then cools, the outside is frozen in place so the inside pulls tightly on it the inside contracts. The glass pulling on itself keeps the molecules from moving, and holds it all together strongly so it's very hard to break. By scratching the surface, ceramic breaks the tension, releasing *all* of it throughout the glass.

8n1nvp

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why can you get food poisoning from cooked chicken that has been left out for 12 hours on the counter, but not from a piece of chicken that has been stuck in your teeth for 12 hours before you brush?

dzs2xy4

dzs26g4

The difference is which type of bacteria grows on the chicken. Since the chicken is cooked, any bacteria on/in the chicken was killed, meaning that only environmental bacteria will grow on it afterwards. On the counter, bacteria from people touching the counter, dust and air, and all the other things that may be in the kitchen could make its way onto the cooked chicken. Some of this bacteria may be harmful, potentially causing food poisoning. In your mouth, there are loads of bacteria already present, all of which (assuming you’re healthy) are not harmful to you. When chicken is stuck in your teeth, it’s almost guaranteed that the bacteria growing on it are from your mouth and not harmful to you. Also, if a bit of bad bacteria have made it onto the chicken, it’s likely that they will be out-competed by less harmful bacteria already in your mouth. TL;DR: Mouth bacteria are generally less harmful than counter bacteria.

A tiny piece of chicken stuck in your teeth for 12 hours could develop bacteria, but it would be a very tiny bit of bacteria.

4y15fn

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing? I was reading in r/science about how 'range anxiety' is keeping people away from electric cars. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4xym1e/range_anxiety_is_scaring_people_away_from/) So I was why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing, but no one has responded. Charging technology is getting better, but still the best we can do is wait 30 minutes at a Tesla station to get about 100 more miles. So is there a technical reason why instead of charging stations for the cars, we don't have charging stations where you drop in, quickly pull out your battery and swap it with one that is already charged? I understand that weight could be an issue, but if you divide it up into multiple batteries that weigh no more than say 20lbs each, that would be manageable and allow the average person to be able to change it out (or you could use attendants). Seems a system like this would allow you recharge as quickly as you can currently gas up.

d6k99x1

d6k419q

As someone who has changed out batteries in Chevy Volts and Cadillac ELRs I can tell you that it is not an easy process. There are a ton of safety measures that they make us follow. We have to have special gloves to handle any of the high voltage system. We have a special table fixture that we use to lower the batteries out of the car. Once the battery is out of the car, it is still in a special sealed box that has approximately 100 bolts holding it together. Once you have the bolts out, you have access to the actual batteries. There are 4 sections to the battery that you can replace. Each section has 30ish cells in it. If you wanted to replace 1 of those sections, you have to disconnect everything and go through all the same safety procedures and checks. You can then physically replace the section. Once you have installed the new section, you hook all the connections back up and install a battery "balancer". It balances the charge across all the sections so they all have the exact same charge which is important due to the face that a .1v variation will set a code in the computer. After all that, you put the lid back on the special box and perform a pressure test to check for air leaks. You can then install it back into the car and hook everything back up, again following the safety procedures. All in all, it can take anywhere from 4 hours to 2 days to install a new battery depending on what exactly you find wrong and how long the "balancer" has to run.

Car batteries are large and heavy, so it's not as easy to swap them out. Also, since those batteries deliver *a lot* of power and get hot, most of them have an extensive cooling system. When you're removing a car's battery, you're not just disconnecting the terminals, you're also disconnecting a liquid cooling loop. It may need to be drained, dried, whatevered.

x9obut

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: If WhatsApp messages are end to end encrypted, how can WhatsApp show me the code used to encrypt those messages?

inp5tfe

inp909f

This is one of the great accomplishments of modern cryptography. The ability to show you exactly how the encryption happen. Modern encryption uses one way functions. Mathematical functions that are trivial in one direction, but we know of no way to reverse them in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Since you don't know which random numbers (generating these in an unpredictable way isn't particularly hard) we're used in any specific case(ie. for any given message), you're left with having to reverse an irreversible function to get the "secret"≈key. (Authentication then works through proving that you know that solution, by giving what are essentially "examples/transpositions" without ever passing over the actual solution.)

Public keys and asymmetrical encryption to exchange a symmetrical encryption key. When I want to send you a message, my devices generates 2 encryption keys. A (private) and B (public). Messages (plaintext) encrypted with one key (ciphertext) can only be decrypted by the other key. You cannot decrypt using the same key it was encrypted with. To simplify it we will use a substitution cipher. The most basic of all ciphers/encryption. The “A” key will increment each letter by +1. So D -> E, E -> F, and so on. The “B” key will increment by -1, so P -> O. A Key + BOOBS = CPPCT If we try to decrypt using the A Key A Key + CPPCT = DQQDU = wrong Now the B Key B Key + CPPCT = BOOBS = correct It’s important here to point out that modern encryption algorithms are vastly more complex, and as of now the most complex of them have yet to be broken. The keys generated are complex enough to avoid collision, or when someone else’s key pair might accurately decrypt your message. Ok, now that we have our keys, we always keep one secret and only known to us, the private key. Use encode the message we want to send using our Private key(A). Along with the encrypted ciphertext we will send our Public Key (B) in clear text. Our friend gets the encrypted message CPPCT and our B Key. They decrypt the message, B key + CPPCT = BOOBS. It makes them laugh. They want to send us back LOL. They use their B Key and at the end of the message they include their Public B key, but this time they encrypt their B key with our B Key. Since my Private Key A is the only thing in existence that can decrypt messages encrypted with my public B key, the sender knows I’m the only person that can read the message they sent. I use my Private A key, decrypt their B key they sent, and use that to decrypt their message “LOL”. Now that we have exchanged keys, and have a secure method to exchange messages, anytime I want to send my friend a message, I encrypt it with their Public B key, which ensures only they can decrypt it with their private A key. The problem is asymmetrical encryption like this is slow. Using the secure exchange we setup we mutually agree to start using a symmetrical encryption method and generate a key to use (Key C). Symmetrical encryption uses only one key for both encryption and decryption, and is much faster than asymmetrical. Going forward we can both just use Key C to encrypt our communications. What’s cool is that even if someone got an exact copy of that first message, it doesn’t matter. When my friend returns the message, which includes their public key, the message is encrypted with my public key. Using my Private key is the only way to decrypt the public key they generated and sent for this session.

ybeph1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why are YouTube videos in 480p resolution almost always larger (in file size) than those in 720p resolution? 480p use a slightly higher bitrate, but why does that make sense?

itg0yct

itg5jpj

Can you clarify your question? Are you asking why would youtube do this, or how can 480p video be larger than 720p?

are you comparing the same video? Download it at 480p then again at 720p and confirm which is larger simple videos with a lot of the same colour and less noisy content will have smaller filesize s as they compress much more

vaz4h2

explainlikeimfive_test

eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?

ic5bu70

ic5i2dv

The idea is that we need to have sugar called out specifically because its the type of carb that we most often consume too much of. The callout is for awareness, education, and tracking your intake of sugar. "50 carbs, but 45 of them are sugar" versus "50 carbs, 5 of which are sugar". Very important to be able to see the difference, hence the callout.

Not all carbs are equal. The two act very differently when consumed. There are some carbohydrates humans cannot even digest because we lack the enzymes, don't chew our cud, and lack the hind-gut fermenting microbes horses and pigs possess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0q4XMzuzV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWWTpe86ja https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yg5\_SmLCps If you eat an amount of refined sugar equal to what is in an apple, it's absorbed in the stomach in minutes, but if you eat an apple, those intra-cellular carbohydrates are still being absorbed in the distal small bowel hours later. The gut bacteria treat it differently, the liver treats it differently, the pancreas treats it differently, and on top of that, you get vitamins, other anti-oxidents, and fiber. It's true there is little practical difference between refined sugar and something like refined white flour, which is too prevalent in the Western diet, but between, say, sugar and a yam, there is a whole cascade of enzymes, hormones, and time that make a difference.

76i19b

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?

doe8ddd

doe5rsp

Imagine that all cars, freight ships, trucks, and airplanes would move at light speed. Now think about how long it would take to send a package around the world. Of course it would be faster now, but it wouldn't come close to the speed of light. _Moving the package_ would take almost no time, but the package would still spend a significant amount of time being inspected, loaded, unloaded, etc... This is essentially how the internet works, too. Many of the same words are used here as well: traffic, package, destination, route, ... The information _moves_ at light speed, but spends a lot of time being _routed_ or even queued. Just like you don't have a dedicated road to every person on earth, data packages have to manoeuvre through a network of shared connections. Imagine you're a router in such a network and you receive a package labeled with the destination "216.58.207.78" and you're connected to five other routers. You're gonna have think about where to send this for a bit unless you would want to send it to all of your router friends, which would make the internet wildly inefficient. On top of that, as several people already pointed out: When looking at the scale of the earth the speed of light suddenly becomes significant. Going from Los Angeles to Berlin at light speed will take 31ms. Go back and forth (that's what a ping does) and you're at 62ms. That's already enough to ruin most online games. The overhead from routing roughly doubles the travel time, so in practice you would be working with a ping of around 124ms, which will make the game feel like you're wearing oven mitts. EDIT: As /u/HakushiBestShaman pointed out, the information doesn't actually travel through the cabel at light speed, but quite a bit slower at around two-thirds light speed. Taking that into account it seems that the overhead from routing is quite low for long distances along _common_ routes, e.g. US<->EU.

The latency comes more from the various bits of hardware the signal has to pass through, than from the wires. Even so, if you're going halfway around the world at the speed of light without detours, that's 20,000 km / 300,000 km/s = 66 ms (edit: in each direction, so the ping time would be +133 just from distance) which is already a pretty respectable ping time.

3o13w0

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: My whole family caught the same nasty stomach bug. Some of us threw up a lot, others only pooped. What was happening in our bodies to cause the different course of actions?

cvt4710

cvt40y6

In a lot of these bugs, children tend to vomit more and adults tend to have diarrhea more, so age might have something to do with it. There are also people who vomit easily with stomach bugs, while others rarely do, so there is an individual "strong stomach" factor as well. Our family has both kinds of people. There are also people who have a genetic resistance to Norovirus. 23andMe used to report on this back when they were allowed to give out genetic data related to health.

this recently happened to my husband and I. the only thing I could figure is that a slight variance in the pH in our digestive tract caused the bacteria or virus to thrive at different points in our guts and to varying degrees (I profusely had The Brown Water Floweth and he barely had stomach upset). the pH changes through our digestive tract and these bugs will find the right pH and begin to replicate. I can guess that it remains relatively the same person to person but with slight variances. that's my theory, anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong.

1kq5by

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce/abundant? If not/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...

cbrjxe3

cbrk9rw

We don't need to make water. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.

TLDR: water is more abundantly available than its components.

w2035q

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?

ignh3qx

igncq08

Systemic chemicals and hormones are mostly broken down in the liver. In addition, individual cells of many types can further process many steroid hormones - so cortisol (which is a steroid hormone = basically a fat based hormone) can be further metabolized in neurons to make a neuroactive version that does not affect gene transcription (making proteins) but membrane receptors. Particularly an inhibitory one called GABA receptors, which also helps “calm down” activity. These work in manner very similar to barbiturate and benzodiazepines and are in fact currently manufactured as anti seizure meds, among other things. Adrenaline is a no steroid hormone, cant get into cells and so binds to some receptor on the outside of cells, briefly, and then unbinds and is broken down. Cortisol is more complicated - it can get into cells, it can be further processed or metabolized in cells, and these metabolites may also be active. In addition there is activation of the opposing neural system (sympathetic and parasympathetic ) which will actively antagonize the effects of the hormones - decreasing heart rate for example. So there are many homeostatic mechanisms that restore the resting functions after a stressor.

We generally have sites in the body where certain chemicals are ‘re-absorbed’ and their effects nullified. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines will block these sites and cause things like serotonin to remain in your system and build up. Your body releases compounds and removes them, and will do this at various levels constantly. Edit. Im wrong, stop upvoting lol

qqd7kr

explainlikeimfive_test

[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?

hjzg3gz

hjzh126

To reduce friction. The barnacles cause more drag on the ship, slowing it down. I know this is one of the reasons, unsure if there is more. Correct me if I'm wrong, or forgetting something.

In ships the build up of barnacles is a type of fouling Fouling is anything that builds up on the underside of the ship and gets rid of the streamlined hull. The barnacles make the ship a lot rougher so the water doesn't flow as smoothly and skin drag is increased, the increase in drag means an increase in required power and fuel consumption to maintain the same speed. They'll also grow quite a lot so you can end up with *a lot* of barnacles on the underside of a ship Modern cargo ships live and die by their efficiency. A build up of barnacles means significantly more fuel burned on a journey across the pacific ocean so big ships generally have anti-fouling coatings on the bottom that can keep barnacles from taking hold or multiplying

yvx48k

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Can a person feel pain or other sensations in a transplanted organ? And if so, how do the severed nerves connect to the rest of the body?

iwgnss6

iwgl94s

With a heart transplant the new heart is said to be de-nerved. It has no nerve connection so it does not respond to your body the same way your native heart would. However another user said that this means your heart rate won't change based on actively which is not true. Your heart rate does change, just with a significant delay because it is controlled through hormones rather than your nervous system. It is true that because your heart had no nerve connection you won't feel a heart attack is the same way.

The severed nerves aren't reconnected. For most organs, this isn't that much of a problem, as they don't need much control or give feedback. For heart transplants, the control of heart rate is lost. Heart rate won't go up with exertion and won't go down with rest, but will tend to stay at a medium rate. It also means that if someone has a heart attack in a transplanted heart, they won't feel the chest pain symptoms, which can make it difficult to recognise.

yptyvd

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?

ivkwimk

ivlhcty

I don't know about fish, but turtles lay their eggs in sand so the embryos can breath. Sea turtles have to come up for air every so often.

For salmon, the rivers that they spawn in have fewer predators and more cover than the ocean, which allows the young salmon to mature some more safely. When they get to a larger size, the ocean has more food than the rivers.

xwau2c

explainlikeimfive_test

eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I’m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I’ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?

ir5dr1h

ir5djw0

Originally sitcoms were filmed with an audience, and you would hear their reactions. In the 60s, TV networks tried inserting laughter into sitcoms, and discovered that focus group audiences found the shows much funnier than with only "natural" laughter. So yeah, it does work. Laughter is contagious. Humans are weird.

Sometimes the audience reaction isn't loud or sustained enough to be worth using in a broadcast. A quick guffaw or chortle can be more of an disruption of a scene than a laugh that goes on for a few seconds. And sometimes a joke just doesn't land, but they need to fill in the pause that was supposed to be there for the audience reaction. Hence using a laugh track to "sweeten" the reaction. Something that doesn't get talked about too often is that there's also the reverse, where audience laughter gets toned down (desweetened) if it's too loud or goes on too long.

8c4bny

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?

dxbzt0y

dxbzn8p

The "flash". Before pushing in, you draw back on the plunger. If the needle or catheter is in a vein, blood will easily be drawn back into the tubing or syringe and then you can push the medication or fluid in once you see that. If you're not in a vein, you won't easily pull blood out when drawing back.

im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.

xtofw1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why do smaller aircraft tend to have their engines on their fuselage while larger ones tend to have them on their wings?

iqqv0x0

iqqwa8s

Ground clearance. Larger landing gear weighs more. Small planes can't carry as much weight without massive losses to fuel efficiency and range. So they have smaller, size appropriate landing gear. This puts them too low to the ground for under wing engine placement.

Smaller aircraft often only need one engine and you want that engine in the center of your aircraft. Larger aircraft will often need two engines or more and so you can't put two engine in the center, that's just too big and wouldn't leave you enough place for the pilot. Usually in that case, they will put those engine either under the wing or behind the aircraft on both side (called Aft mounted- engine). Each solution have their pros and cons, but usually winged-mounted are preferred because the engine are close to the center of mass of the aircraft and they are easier to access for maintenance. One of the disadvantage is that you are limited in the size of your engine by the clearance under the wing.

xokddg

legaladvice_test

My lawyer said he got a charge dismissed but lied and actually plead guilty. He did get the other charge dismissed. I’m pretty upset that he lied to me. At this point is it even worth confronting him about it. Can he even do anything at this point for me after the case is closed ? Never was I in front of the judge. He went in and got me a plea agreement. To come to find out what he said wasn’t exactly true. I went into the court house to try to talk to someone about it. But, they said I need to talk to my lawyer. Can my lawyer even do anything for me at this point ?

ipzck5w

iq0aq3j

Lawyers don't plea for you. Did they make a bigger deal that you agreed to without understanding it?

It's not possible to enter a plea without signing your plea form, waiver of rights, and entering the plea in front of the Judge. So either you're misunderstanding what you did in court or something is incorrect. I recommend contacting your lawyer first and requesting clarification.

u1a9p0

legaladvice_test

[TX] Friend's dog is being abused, will reporting animal abuse launch a bigger investigation into his child abuse as well? Texas. A friend of mine (16 or 17) is being severely abused by his parents, physically and emotionally. CPS was called to his house one or two years ago, they didn't even TALK to him (they interviewed his BROTHER, who wasn't being abused) and left, and then his life became worse. Because of that we (as in his friends and classmates) are all reluctant to call CPS again. I don't know who originally called CPS or if that was the first time. His parents just got a dog a couple of days ago, and now the dog is also being abused (physically beat, kept in a small cage at all times). I'm wondering if we call an investigation on animal abuse for the dog, will they also look into the child abuse going on at home or is that ONLY the job of CPS? Should I ask him to start documenting photos?

i4cblwn

i4b10m2

A) Call CPS, B) Tell every single teacher you can about this, C) You might want to remind them that it is illegal for them to not report this to CPS, D) This applies to pretty much everyone in a school including the Lunch person.

You are young, and I know you are worried about your friend. The right thing in this situation is to call CPS again for your friend. And absolutely call Animal Control (google animal control and your city to find the phone number) and tell them you'd like to report an animal abuse case.

3tlco5

legaladvice_test

[Chicago IL] My therapist that my parents hired and forced me to see in highschool has decided to charge me instead of my parents for appointments I missed/was late for. So in my junior year of high school my parents discovered that I had a fetish they didn't like so they sent me to a pricey widely known therapist to try to cure me. I was forced to see him once a week for about 2 years. One day I missed an appointment because I was running late and my train was severely delayed. That day he told me he would be charging me the 150 dollars an hour that my parents were supposed to be paying because "he's helping me act like more of an adult". Over the course of 2 years I missed 4 appointments. Sometimes because of sports, sometimes because There was a miscommunication in scheduling. I never once blatantly blew off an appointment for the hell of it. Well Now I'm a freshman in college (So poor) and He keeps sending me invoices for the 600$ that I owe him. I'm a fucking kid. If I knew for a second that I would ever have to pay for my own therapy sessions, I wouldn't go to an expensive therapist! But I didn't have a choice. I never signed anything, and he never told me about this policy of his until I missed an appointment. The worst part is that recently he has been informing me that because I have not been paying up, that he is going to charge me 20$ a month interest until I pay everything off. So do I HAVE to pay this guy? Does he get to decide who owes him money and who doesn't? I don't even have 600$ to my name and this 20$ interest he pulled out of his ass isn't going to help. I really need to know what I should say to this guy. I'm at a loss. I've been ignoring his emails for months. please help.

cx78364

cx77oin

Legal or not, you need to file a complaint against this therapist. You can do so here: http://www.idfpr.com/Admin/Complaints.asp This is just not ethical behavior, if what you're saying is true and the entire story. Asking a minor (at the time of rendered services) to pay for the services requested by the parents is not OK. Now, if you were a minor at the time and you requested these services without telling your parents, then they would not be responsible for paying the costs. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I think the board would probably be unhappy with using money and the added stress of a debt you didn't expect or agree to as a treatment for something it seems like you don't need treatment for. This is, of course, assuming this is a licensed psychologist. If not, either there could be other things he is in trouble for, or he doesn't answer to the board. Do you know his credentials?

The guy can demand payment all he wants. I can also tell my neighbor's 5-year-old that he owes me a bajillion dollars. Both have roughly the same chance of being enforceable. This is because you were a minor when the services were performed. Your parents are responsible. I personally would tell the guy to pound sand and not contact you again.

f41bwq

legaladvice_test

[Massachusetts] Neighbor's and their friends are trespassing on my property to get to lake via my private dock, what liability am I looking at? I recently purchased a lakefront cabin with a private dock. The cabin is located at the end of a peninsula. This Sunday, I visited it and discovered about 10 people on the frozen lake and a giant pickup truck parked on my property. As I was getting out of my car, the neighbor (whom I never met) walked passed me with her two dogs and a pizza and approached my dock. I saw a guy from the group of ten meet her on my dock and she gave him the pizza. I told them they were on private property and that they were trespassing (even though there's signs saying so) and the guy seemed understanding, but the neighbor replied "I've been doing this for 8 years." At which point, I replied, personally I didn't care, but what I didn't want was the liability of someone possibly getting hurt. They didn't reply and I left it at that. They did move the truck but I left so I don't know if they moved anything back or continued to use my dock. What kind of liability and I looking at here? How should I best protect myself? Also, in Massachusetts, the Attorney General has decided not to prosecute some crimes, trespassing being one of them. I don't know what bearing, if any, this may have. Thank you.

fhnhlm2

fhnkoft

If they get injured on your property they may sue you, they might not win, but defending against the suit itself could be very expensive. I'd consider looking into fencing/gates which can control access when you arent there.

I strongly suggest buying homeowner's insurance for the property with decent limits of liability. Not being liable does not keep you from being sued, but insurance will cover legal fees and damages for you.

87y446

legaladvice_test

How can a man (discreetly)find out if his wife is still married to her previous husband in another state (Arizona)? My buddy "Fisher" has been married for 3 years. His wife "MaryAnn" mentioned in casual conversation that she fears she is still married to her previous husband in Arizona (Fisher & MaryAnn live in California now.) Important: she was in a coma for approximately one year and never received any kind of closure- her previous spouse was just gone. Is there some kind of a national divorce database that can be searched online or something? Fisher is considering hiring a PI but I think there has to be a more simple way to find out tactfully. Any advice?

dwgg8mm

dwggix6

Check the court marriage/divorce records.

She got married 3 years ago while not knowing if she was still married to a previous spouse who ghosted her while she was in a coma? And now the current husband wants to hire a PI to find out instead of just checking court records? Not sure why anyone is worried about being discreet. There's obviously no secrets to keep. Besides, it is highly unlikely that she is divorced and doesn't know it if all husband number 1 did was disappear.

9dsx9d

legaladvice_test

[Ontario] Walked in on a exec having sex with another coworker, what do i need to do to protect myself? I got a pager duty alert tonight, after getting a warning about one of our servers basically becoming unreachable. I arrived, and fixed the issue, but as i was leaving i could hear people faintly talking. So i thought it must be a coworker working late or something so i decided to pop in and say hi. Turns out it was one of our executives having sex with another coworker, in plain sight in her office. I immediately apologized and said i saw nothing and left really fast. Unfortunately not long after that she sent me an email stating we need to discuss what happened last night. A few things: * She is not my boss, as i am in IT and she works in a completely separate department * I have proof of me being called into work, and being asked by my direct boss if i could pop in and fix it. I am worried and wondering if i should tell my boss, or what should i do legally to protect myself?

e5k0eob

e5jzxh0

On a strategic note, if these people are habitual scumbags they may try to implicate you in wrongdoing by offering you something that compromises your integrity. Don't accept gifts - especially "intangible" ones - any time in the near future. Or at all, ever, but definitely not right now.

Not a lawyer but had some experience with Ontario employment law. Workers are pretty well protected. I would write down on paper everything I saw and file it away. This ensure you have a contemporary account of what happened, includes dates and times, etc.. In the unlikely even you are treated unfairly show a copy of the letter to HR. Keep the original in case you need a labor lawyer but you won't.

pynnud

legaladvice_test

Neighbor's dogs killed my livestock. I want to file a small claim petition in Texas, but do not know where to start. Animal husbandry is the main source of income for me. I raise show quality and rare breed rabbits and exotic poultry that I intend to sell chicks from. I have other animals that are strictly pets. Sunday night, around 10:30p, I caught two large dogs on my property attempting to tear through the fence of my goat pen. It is goat fencing on the exterior with electric fencing on the interior to keep the goats from climbing the sides and getting out when penned at night. I yelled at the two dogs and ran inside to grab shoes and a flashlight. When I came back out, one dog was trying to get through a fence surrounding the open sides of my loafing barn (a horse stable-style barn with an open front and partially open sides) and the other was trying to jump over. That barn houses my senior laying hens and my herd of rabbits (approximately 80 valued at $100-350 each). My husband was threatening to shoot the dogs so I ran them off our property. IMO, the dogs are just being dogs and their owners should have kept them on their property. I began checking fencing and making sure everyone was okay when I found that they had torn open the side of one of my coops and killed my 24 exotic birds. I bought them as chicks in May (they were not cheap) and they were to begin laying in November at which point I would have sold the chicks to supplement my income. The Ayam Cemanis are valued at $150-200 each when mature and the BLRWs are typically in the $60-100 range for a mature bird depending on which farms have them available. Additionally, the coop that was destroyed was purchased pre-covid for $450 +tax and is now listed for $1163.66 (tax included). In total, damages were $3,748.66 not included the upcoming loss of income. Police came out to my home and we told them what happened, we took a ton of photos, and gave them a description of the dogs. For those wondering, I am in the process of buying a donkey to live with my animals and investing in outdoor cameras. Then, around 1am, the dogs came back. One was on my back porch and another was trying to get through the fence into our rabbit barn again. This time, I was able to round them up with treats and secure them both to my dog's outdoor lead that keeps him from running off when we take him outside. They matched the description I had given to the original officers and I took photos of them and their tags with the owner's contact information. The officers attempted to reach the owners, but could not so the dogs were impounded and I was told to try to settle things with the dogs' owners on my own, but if they were uncooperative I could take them to Small Claims Court. I reached out to the owner to explain my account of what happened, share the photos, and explain the financial hit her dogs caused my family. I told her I did not want to go to SCC and would prefer to settle things on our own. I also told her that I understood that it was a lot of money so I could work with her if she was willing to come to an agreement. I sent her links to where the items were being sold and told her she could purchase replacements from anywhere she wanted so long that it was the same coop and the birds were the same breed, sexes, and at least the age of the ones lost. I also told her that as long as she could have the birds replaced by November she could take her time on the coop. In a nutshell, she told me I was SOL and she had no money. So, I want to move forward with SCC, but have no idea where to start. I live in Panola County, Texas. I filed two police reports and have numerous photos, the officers saw the damage and the dogs. Please give me any advice you can!

hevc2xv

hevt04d

\PDF warning\] [http://www.co.panola.tx.us/upload/page/2919/docs/JusticeOfPeace/JP2-3/CivilFines.pdf In short, you fill out the paperwork, pay the filing fees, file the paperwork with the court, await your court date, show up and present your case, obtain a judgement, then -- arguably the more difficult part -- figure out how to force the defendant to pay up, as small claims court doesn't put money directly into your pocket. Note that Texas *can* make it difficult to force defendants to pay up if they, a) don't willingly pay up, and/or, b) have the money just sitting in a bank account somewhere, as Texas really limits the methods in which a small claims plaintiff can levy accounts, seize assets, and garnish wages for non-exempt property and money. That shouldn't dissuade you from suing, it's just to set your expectations about the process of actually getting compensated afterward.

In addition to the small claims court route, don't forget about declaring a loss on both your federal and state income tax returns. You have an actual loss, a police report that should be enough documentation. If you take this to small claims court and are stiffed because there is no money - then this may be at least something to soften the financial blow.

aqr1k7

legaladvice_test

Neighbor rents attached townhouse next to us on AirBNB, wants to buy ours at way below market value since we are selling. Today they put up a sign on his property advertising it is an AirBNB rental for parties. Is there nothing i can do? Location: Ontario, Canada Our neighbour who i will just call Guy, bought the townhouse next to us last winter, it is a 2 unit townhouse since we are on a corner. He immediately flat out told us he was renting it on AirBnB, and told us that if he caused problems for his guests he would "come after us". The last year has been absolute hell for us, but apparently there isn't anything we can do about it. We have had to put up with his guests parties, guests parking and blocking us in our own drive way, guests pounding on our door at 4am because they locked themselves out, to people climbing and breaking our fence to get access to our pool. In December one of his guests tried to break down our front door, and in a drunken rage and proceeded to throw beer bottles through several of our windows, when he couldnt get into the property. That was the breaking point for us and we basically gave up trying to live here. We put up a for sale early this month, and immediately Guy was at our front door basically offering to buy our house for a fair bit below market value. When we refused he immediately told me i am a "dumb cunt" and i am "lucky he doesn't sue me for harassing his guests". Today we were having our first open house, only to discover this morning a large sign in the bedroom window saying "Proudly Hosting AirBNB, rent me via the App for your next party!". The sign looks terrible, but the first question i got today from pretty much everyone was "so your neighbour hosts on AirBnB?", so it worked. Instead we got a single offer for a lot less than what most places around here go for according to our agent. I am tired of this shit, and i am at wits end here. I loved this house, and both me and my wife wanted to start a family here. But now that Guy moved in with his rental company we can't live here anymore. Do i really have any sort of recourse here?

egi4nau

egi3zoh

Get copies of the arrests and noise violations, etc, and send them to AirB&B. They have policies on being a good neighbor.

Have you consulted a real estate attorney? There are some places that have laws against being in a position to directly drive down the price of a property in order to buy it themselves below market value.

bjh32y

legaladvice_test

Former grad student, considering suing my university for $14k unpaid wages (Texas) Long story short, I completed my graduate degree back in December and my graduate advisor still owes me $14,000 in unpaid wages for the work I did in their research lab during my last year of grad school. This professor paid me what they promised for the first few years, but then they stopped abruptly. The excuses for why I wasn't getting paid kept building up and changing over time, and as soon as I was on my way out the professor started stonewalling me, on multiple occasions literally just walking out of the room when I tried to talk to them. During the year where I wasn't getting paid, this professor also intentionally sabotaged my efforts to find work elsewhere. They lied about me in emails and over the phone with other professionals in our relatively small field of work. Multiple people in and out of the university contacted me and told me "Hey, I thought you should know this is what Dr. Professor said about you, and I know that's not true". I contacted the dean of my college, and they referred the matter to university legal affairs. I gave Legal copies of emails and written notes from face-to-face conversations where I was promised a salary, they asked me to come in and talk to them, I did, and then they did nothing. I informed them that this professor has done this to at least three other students over the course of at least five years. One of the other students had to drop out because, unlike me, they didn't have any external funding. I gave them piles of documentation, much of it taken from the university's own records, showing how the professor had falsified financial statements, employment records, grant proposals and reports, how the professor was paying students less than promised or nothing at all and using personnel money to buy equipment because they intentionally underestimated their equipment costs to make their grant proposal seem more competitive. University legal still did nothing. I contacted them again to ask if they needed any additional information from me, if they had planned or taken any corrective action, if they were planning on paying me my wages, no response of any kind. Granted, they have been busy the past few weeks with coaches taking bribes from celebrities, but I spoke to them months before that. As far as I know, at this point my only option is to just sue the university directly. They have a massive legal department and they've argued in front of SCOTUS multiple times in the past few years, so I have no idea if or how I should approach this, but the simple fact of the matter is that this professor owes me $14,000 in unpaid wages, I have written statements promising me that amount, they slandered me in professional settings, and they're lying to the university and the federal government about how they're using research funds. What are the odds of suing a top-tier public research university with a multi-billion-dollar endowment and coming out ahead? I'm in Texas if that's relevant.

em82rz4

em81b4m

I would also look into contacting the entities that provided him with grant money. It's a huge no-no to do what he's doing if the money is from places like NSF or NIH.

You can look into filing a wage complaint by seaching file wage complaint texas, on Google. If too much time has passed you would have no choic but to file a lawsuits. However, lawsuits are so expensive that it could be counterproductive to do so. You will need a lawyer and the lawyer will cost. One may be able to negoiate on your behalf to though.

8mxeit

legaladvice_test

Friend sent me a Cease and Desist for an app. A friend of mine recently sent me a Cease & Decist letter claiming that I stole his app idea. He claims that he told me about this idea, but I don't have any recollection of it. He also expects me to pay for damages done. On speaking to him, he said it's fine if I do it for educational purposes. He does not currently have an app and I'm on the verge of publishing. I don't know how to respond to this. I have worked for days on this app and have not found any patents of it. Please help as to what steps I should take. Edit :- The app was made in Seattle where I am a student.

dzr5nv8

dzr4xq8

He sent you a C&D, or his lawyer did? Either way this sounds frivolous.

--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/ktech99 Title: **Friend sent me a Cease and Desist for an app.** Original Post: > A friend of mine recently sent me a Cease &amp; Decist letter claiming that I stole his app idea. > He claims that he told me about this idea, but I don't have any recollection of it. > He also expects me to pay for damages done. > On speaking to him, he said it's fine if I do it for educational purposes. > He does not currently have an app and I'm on the verge of publishing. > I don't know how to respond to this. I have worked for days on this app and have not found any patents of it. > Please help as to what steps I should take. --- LocationBot 4.0 | GitHub (Coming Soon) | Statistics | Report Issues

ec02mv

legaladvice_test

[VA] My ex/daughters mother beat the daylight out of me yesterday in my own home, tried to strangle me & refused to leave after i said it over 20 times, i swatted her off several times as she kept on coming for me after i broke free. I had to leave my own home to get away. Note: We dont live togethe My ex has been trying to get back with me but i have not been interested. Shes been extremely bitter and resentful. Yesterday she came to pick my daughter up and my daughter was asleep (4month old) i told her she should let her sleep longer because she was passed out. My daughters hands were clasped together and you could tell this nap was something special. Usually in events like this my ex will go out and smoke cigarettes and ride around or go do something but she just stood there silently. My phone had instagram open and there was some random girl skateboarding picture from my timeline on it. She snapped attacked me clawed me against the wall. And thats when i started saying "leave" " get out of my house" she wouldnt leave and kept attacking me. Id break free and shed come right back nails first so wherever she grabbed me her nails would dig in first. I started swatting jer hands away, then she came for my face and i punched her the butt. All the while telling her to leave. She wouldnt still so i went for my phone she jumped on my back and started choking me i got my phone and recorded it. She brought me to the ground and had me in a choke hold and i literally could not breath i broke free and ran out of my own house. I walked around the block and came back and told her i called the police (i did.t because this is my second week living g at my new place and i do t want to get kicked out, i got kicked out of my last place because of her) She smacked me across the face jerked my daughter up out of her sleep and left and got charges pressed on me before i had the chance to go to the police. I had to go to work so i did t get to stick around and file mine but i am this morning. I was also arrested last night after work. What charges can i press? Do i have any protection or rights in my own home?

fb8cjkn

fb8vce5

Make sure to photograph any injuries/scratches on your body to use as evidence, as well as any property damage. What are they charging you with?

CPS investigator here. You should be concerned about the child welfare referral that is more than likely going to be made, concerning your child’s exposure to domestic violence. This is considered child neglect and it is a risk to your child’s physical, mental and emotional safety. Law enforcement officers are mandated reporters, so you should both expect a visit from CPS very soon.

mpuxxh

legaladvice_test

I solely own and pay for my house. Bf lives with me but pays less than $300/month for misc. bills. I want him out and have repeatedly broken up but he will not leave. I'm considering giving him notarized letter with 30 day notice. This is not Covid related. Will I be able to legally evict him? Location: Florida. My house is solely in my name. I pay the mortgage. Bf lives with me. He won't leave. There is a history of abuse. My plan is to rent out an Airbnb for a month after giving him the notarized letter so I don't have to have any contact with him. I think he will leave but if he doesn't, can I pursue eviction process with the Covid moratorium on evictions? It's not like this is Covid related in any way. Thank you.

guc66an

guc55y0

Under no circumstances should you leave your house with him in it.

You do not need a reason to end his month-to-month tenancy. Just a written notice to vacate (15 or more days). Then if he's not gone you take him to court. The COVID moratoriums are for people who can't pay due to COVID (at least in Florida). Finally a sheriff with a court order comes to remove him.

pi4nd5

legaladvice_test

How to help intellectually disabled cousin currently in prison into a more appropriate place? My cousin (23M) has been in jail since January for saying he had a gun and “trying to rob a store”. He didn’t have a real gun, just an air soft gun. The real issue is that he is severely intellectually disabled (mentally he is probably 4-5 years old, he was in special Ed his whole childhood). His immediate family is very poor and have hired a lawyer but he hasn’t been able to get him out. I feel like if anything he should be in a home or psych hospital because he is so disabled. I feel so bad for him in prison because I know he doesn’t know what is going on and I worry he isn’t being treated properly. I feel like it should be against the law to have someone that disabled locked away in an adult prison. Is there anything I can do or any laws I can use to get him out of there and into a more appropriate place? Are there any national organizations that fight for disabled people like him that we should contact? I have also thought about going to a news organization with this story. Do you think public outrage would help him? We are in Georgia, USA.

hboye5g

hbojrzv

Not a lawyer, but worked with this population in Georgia in the past Contact the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities. Disability and Mental Health services are woefully underfunded and under-resourced in Georgia (really, everywhere). There are institutions in Georgia for individuals with developmental disabilities and mental health issues. However, the goal is to get individuals in the least restrictive environment, which, for many individuals, results in them then not having adequate support resources and ending up cycling back into dangerous situations or institutionalized.

Have you tried the ACLU? Legal Aid? ADRC? Work the phones, write letters, contact local politicians, be a pain in the ass.

yoeyi4

legaladvice_test

My dog was mauled and killed on my own property Yesterday afternoon my 8 year old lab mix was mauled by two pitbulls that came onto my property. We rushed her to the emergency vet but after several hours of trying to save her, we decided to euthanize, the trauma was too much and she was struggling and in so much pain. Unfortunately my husband and I weren't able to deal with the attacking dogs as we rushed her to the hospital. I have never seen these dogs in my life, I have no idea where they came from. I have both of the dogs on security camera and the attack on video. I've filed a police report and I hope things move fast. Will I be able to sue the owners, if found, for her medical bills? Could I also sue them for emotional damages, extra things? I am devastated and want to punish these irresponsible owners as much as I legally can.

ivdx78n

ive0ex2

Yes you would be able to sue them for the medical bills.

Not sure if there is any legal issues but maybe posting a description of the dogs on your local Facebook page might help you find the owners. If you have a security camera you can even post the video to a community safety page

cb3fqa

legaladvice_test

Neighbors kids won't stop destroying my yard. What options do I have? (IN) So ive been having issues with my neighbors kids playing in my yard. I've planted a tree which they rip the leaves off of to the point that they are killing multiple branches, they leave my yard filled with toys (multiple of which have been destroyed when I mow and hit them when they are hiding in the grass which is Great for my mower), and my wife caught them shooting off fireworks from our yard today. They get out my hose and play with it, and generally leave trash everywhere in my yard. I also have a fence up in my back yard and whenever I let my dogs out they taunt my dogs with sticks and won't leave them alone. I've called the police multiple times but they never do anything. Ive talked with the guy who lives there and he doesn't care. He watches them do all this stuff and refuses to stop them. I'm not sure if he's their dad or what because there is always like 3-5 different women coming over dropping off random kids as he's unemployed and just stays home all day. Im going to talk with his landlord next time I see him, but until then what options do I have? The property line is directly on the side of their house and it is a triplex to which they have an exterior staircase that is actually on my property. I'm thinking about putting up a fence in the front yard and changing the back yard to a privacy fence instead of a welded metal fence. What other options do I have?

etcrpn9

etcvdx0

--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/Mercarcher Title: **Neighbors kids won't stop destroying my yard. What options do I have? (IN)** Original Post: > So ive been having issues with my neighbors kids playing in my yard. I've planted a tree which they rip the leaves off of to the point that they are killing multiple branches, they leave my yard filled with toys (multiple of which have been destroyed when I mow and hit them when they are hiding in the grass which is Great for my mower), and my wife caught them shooting off fireworks from our yard today. They get out my hose and play with it, and generally leave trash everywhere in my yard. I also have a fence up in my back yard and whenever I let my dogs out they taunt my dogs with sticks and won't leave them alone. I've called the police multiple times but they never do anything. > > Ive talked with the guy who lives there and he doesn't care. He watches them do all this stuff and refuses to stop them. I'm not sure if he's their dad or what because there is always like 3-5 different women coming over dropping off random kids as he's unemployed and just stays home all day. > > Im going to talk with his landlord next time I see him, but until then what options do I have? > > The property line is directly on the side of their house and it is a triplex to which they have an exterior staircase that is actually on my property. I'm thinking about putting up a fence in the front yard and changing the back yard to a privacy fence instead of a welded metal fence. What other options do I have? --- LocationBot 4.6319918 & 17/64ths | Report Issues

He may be running an unlicensed day care. It looks like in Indiana they can be unlicensed if they have 5 or fewer unrelated children in their care. So if you think that there may be 6 or more children there, it may be worth a report to the FSSA. edit: I found a link to Indiana's Child Care Finder. You can check there to see if he is licensed or not.

won96g

legaladvice_test

how long will my mom be in jail for domestic abuse? my mom dragged me around the house by my hair. i told the police, i had video evidence and they took a picture of my hair literally coming off bc she pulled it out. she did this bc she wanted to kick me out, but she legally has to give me a 30-day warning. my 18th birthday was yesterday and i never got a warning or anything. they brought her to jail, apparently she has court at 11am. do you think she’ll be in jail for longer? i didn’t want her to go to jail i just wanted her to stop.

ikbxpij

ikbxu08

It's impossible to guess. You absolutely should support prosecution, testify honestly as to what happened, etc.

You did the right thing calling the police and glad you are safe for the moment. Do you have someplace safe to go to for when she returns? She could be back tonight or tomorrow, depends on a lot of factors like where you are and what she is charged with. But more likely she'll be given an order of protection not letting her to go the house since you're there. Do you have the number for victims' services?

wqlaly

legaladvice_test

Is it possible to earn US citizenship for my future child if I, the future father, am a US citizen BUT the child's birth certificate does NOT have me listed as the father (even though I am)? • The future child will NOT be born on American soil • The future child's mother will NOT be American • I am a U.S. born citizen • The country where the baby will be born refuses to issue birth certificates with the father's name on it if the mother and father are unmarried. (For reasons perhaps too long to explain here, it will not be possible to get a legally recognized marriage in the country) &#x200B; **Would a paternity test or something be enough evidence for the American government to give U.S. citizenship to the future child? Or is there another solution?** &#x200B; From what I understand, in order for the U.S. government to normally give citizenship to citizens' babies born abroad, the birth certificate must be provided. However, as I've explained, it will not be possible to get a birth certificate with my name on it listed as the father.

ikn1p4c

ikn3g64

Is the mother married to someone else at the time of birth? Not sure if ICE currently presumes the husband is the father, but that is law in many US states.

Once you are 100% sure thr child is yours, report the birth to a consulate via https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html. I'd suggest calling the consulate first to see if they are going to need any additional documentation to show that you are the baby's biological father. The consulate is also where you'd get the baby a passport.

k94g4d

legaladvice_test

My Dog bit a kid who wouldn't leave him alone. They want him to be put down. My Dog is a German Shepard has never bit anyone. He isn't stupid or aggressive but, he doesn't like being pet on by random strangers unless I've given consent. He wont bite but, he will shy away but, if you kept on trying to pet him he would likely bite. I mean would you like to have strangers come up and start touching you? No way. I was at the park and this group of kids kept coming over and trying to pet him. I told them no twice. My dog was already uncomfortable and clearly did not like it. We finally pulled away. I had to pee so I tied him up to the post near the door. He's a good boy so I know he wouldn't bark or run off. Next thing I know I hear a scream. The kid got bit. After I told him 3x do not touch my dog he goes and tries to pet him. The kid isnt bleeding much just a small nip. My dog is freaked out and cowering. An adult comes by and calls animal control citing "The dog is aggressive and dangerous and viciously attacked a child". AC come by and so do the Parents. AC take my dog away for testing for rabies; and the Mom is angry. The kid says he went to pet my dog and the dog lunged at him and tried taking his hand off. I know that's a lie because, my dog is well trained and has never bit anyone or shown signs of aggression. Dogs dont just randomly go crazy. He does like being pet and I told that kid he doesn't so dont pet him. The Mom is sobbing and saying she wants my "vicious" dog put to sleep because, he's a danger to everyone around him. She ignored everything I said regarding me warning the kid not too pet him. I'm just frazzled right now. My dog is currently being detained and I dont know if he'll be coming back. All he did was nip a kid who wouldnt take no for an answer. What is my next step? I want to act fast before she takes legal action and to protect my dog.

gf23usg

gf21am0

Just a tip: in any future discussion about this, do not focus on the “my dog is well trained and has never bit anyone” part of the story. I used to investigate dog bites for my city and every single incident involved being told that by the dog owner. Whether it’s true or not is inconsequential. Just focus on the facts that you (in your opinion) did everything in your power to keep your dog under your control and away from everyone else. Tying the dog up (and not in your control) when there are kids around wasn’t super smart, but you still might be fine if you give your side of the story. Good luck

Do you have your vaccination records for your dog? There is no test for rabies on live animals, you must produce proof that they are vaccinated. That is step 1. Take your proof and contact animal control.

52w50i

legaladvice_test

(MN) My brother and his wife bought a house that was stolen (taken from someone through a forged quit claim deed) My brother and his wife bought a house 6 months ago. It has now come out that the person they bought it from wasn't the owner, her cousin was the owner and he forged a quit claim deed and had her evicted by the police. He then turned around and sold it to my brother and his wife. They had no idea. They thought the sale was legitimate. They had a real estate agent and got the mortgage from the bank. They aren't bad people and have no interest in living in a house that was stolen from its rightful owner. She's been homeless for the last 7 months and was living on the streets and in shelters the last anyone knew. So once she is found, what happens? My brother and his wife aren't going to fight with her, they just want to know what the process is and how they will get their down payment and stuff back. The cousin who did the forgery was arrested after trying this a second time with a stranger's house (thankfully he did not succeed) and that's how his lie about this house was caught. We just want some information on what happens next.

d7ntzij

d7nti5v

I want to make it clear that your brother and his wife should not, under any circumstances, just surrender the house. They have the down payment+mortgage invested in the house, and, regardless of whether the guy committed fraud, the bank still gave him money and is going to want it back from the people who borrowed it (your brother). It sucks, but title insurance will help them settle this. I feel like there is more to the story than this anyway. If the cousin took this to court to file an eviction, than the court has likely seen the title and found that it was valid. Be very careful that this isn't a scam itself happening.

#THIS IS WHAT TITLE INSURANCE IS FOR

56i3ln

legaladvice_test

Neighbor cut down trees within my property line without my permission. I live in Michigan and have several trees near my property line which provide privacy from our neighbors. These trees are 1-2 feet on our property (we still have a stake in the ground showing the property line). Last year, we had a six foot chain link fence installed in my backyard to keep in my dog. The fence is in front the trees on our property. The neighbor just cut down a few trees in my property line (without permission) which eliminated our privacy. What are my options?

d8juzfx

d8jfrss

Get land surveyed, hire and arborist to get a report on value and replacement cost of trees. Hire a lawyer to send a letter to neighbors about said damage and estimate reports on replacement costs. They better have homeowners because this will not be cheap for them.

So you installed a fence several feet inside your property line, inside of these trees? Do you think the neighbor assumed that you built the fence on the property line?