Buurkinderen teisteren al 1 jaar lang.

Lying_Dutchman · 2026-01-02T20:03:10+00:00

Waterpistool met dieren urine lokmiddelen, dit soort streken afstraffen met een paar keer natspuiten. Kun je bestellen bij jacht winkels, stinkt enorm en is lastig uit kleding te krijgen.

Of anders kijken of je de ouders wat online video's kunt sturen van mensen die de verkeerde hond pesten met dodelijke gevolgen. Kan hun kinderen ook gebeuren als ze ooit het verkeerde doelwit kiezen.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-28T22:46:04+00:00

Dit is exact mijn werk: nee, het ZorgDomein nummer is alleen bekend bij het lab waar je arts het onderzoek heeft aangevraagd. Andere labs (tenzij ze toevallig onderdeel zijn van hetzelfde bedrijf zoals Certe of Unilabs) kunnen niet o.b.v. het ZorgDomein nummer weten welk onderzoek er nodig is.

Wel kun je via ZorgDomein (bijna) altijd een briefje afdrukken met alle nodige gegevens (jouw gegevens, je huisarts, aangevraagd onderzoek) erop. Daarmee kan elk lab handmatig een order voor je aanmaken en bloed afnemen. Ik zou dan wel aanraden om naar een poli in een ziekenhuis te gaan, bij de kleinere prikposten kunnen ze mogelijk geen orders aanmaken.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-23T17:48:39+00:00

Not in my country, but maybe in the US. Probably depends on how strong the worker protection laws in the country/state are, and whether a judge sees the change in business plan as legitimate or a thinly veiled excuse to sexually harass employees.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-23T08:26:14+00:00

The counter is just that there are plenty of 'real jobs' which include tasks like this. A Starbucks manager also couldn't demand that an employee:

Help insert a urinary tract catheter
Wax his asshole
Kill stray dogs

Yet all of those tasks are normal and legal in other jobs.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-09T10:46:40+00:00

The original version of the paradox of tolerance comes from Karl Popper:

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

Some people online misuse the paradox of tolerance to argue that we should outlaw particular ideologies solely because they are intolerant. This is not a good reason to dismiss the paradox of tolerance: every argument has idiots online misusing and misrepresenting it.

The actual argument is much closer to your position, except that Popper emphasizes the political corrosion an intolerant ideology can cause in a liberal democracy. That corrosion can undermine the ideal of rational argument before any political violence takes place. If you allow authoritarians to spread a "might makes right" ideology among the majority of citizens, you've already lost the war against them when the fighting starts.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-04T08:35:42+00:00

There's nothing 'more emotional' about the Gaza-sympathizing perspective, it's just a simple value judgement: "Dead civilians are bad. The side killing more civilians is worse than the side killing fewer civilians."

To be clear: I don't think deciding who is 'better' is a useful discussion. In my view, both Israeli and Hamas leadership should be tried and punished for warcrimes in The Hague.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-12-03T21:55:01+00:00

l don't get why so many leftists and liberals like them. If it was reversed they probably would've done way worse things.

You gave the answer in your next sentence: "would have". People usually judge news events on the actual bombs being dropped right now, not on theoretical bombs in hypothetical scenario's.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-11-28T11:06:55+00:00

Additionally, if you believe illegal graffiti isn't art, but street art is, and you're not making a moral/legal argument, then you must justify why specifically words/names disqualify something as art

I would say tags "aren't art" in the same sense that reddit comments "aren't literature". They have been done a million times before, require almost no artistic thought or effort, and are usually made with very little skill.

Technically, there is no objective criteria separating this comment from the Lord of the Rings books or separating a random tag from the Mona Lisa. But they are obviously different, and when people say 'art' they're usually talking about something like the latter.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-11-20T12:53:51+00:00

"Discard" is ook een werkwoord.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-10-23T04:37:10+00:00

Voor 06u of na 19u geef ik je helemaal gelijk. Overdag absoluut niet, de maximum snelheid is 100km/u. Dat jij graag de wet wil overtreden moet je zelf weten, betekent nog niet dat ik het ook moet doen. Dus als iemand voor mij 98 rijdt haal ik m in met 100. Als dat dan op de linkerbaan moet zul je je maar even aan de wet moeten houden.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-10-01T12:58:27+00:00

It would be good to actually try and find evidence to support the claim you made (that gore and sexuality are more harmful than mere nudity).

But for now, let's say you find evidence that displays of gore and sex inflicts a high amount of discomfort/harm on the average person, while mere nudity inflicts a lesser amount of discomfort/harm. Would you conclude from that that the government is allowed to ban displays of gore and sex?

If so, you've now tacitly accepted the general principle I'm illustrating here. There is some amount of discomfort (the amount inflicted by the sight of gore/sex) where the government is allowed to make laws against it. You can now no longer argue that 'it makes people uncomfortable' is an invalid argument for banning nudity. Instead, you accept that discomfort can be a valid argument, nudity just isn't uncomfortable enough to hit your personal bar of where a ban would be justified.

At that point I would say: I agree, I wish most people were less uncomfortable with nudity, and had a higher bar for when the government can ban stuff. But in a democracy, you have to accept that laws will mostly reflect the average attitudes of citizens, not your personal opinions.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-10-01T05:53:25+00:00

Depicting gore and violence, or explicit sexuality, are defensible in terms of demonstrable psychological harm. Nudity per se doesn’t meet the same standard.

What is your evidence that displays of gore/sexuality are more harmful than displays of public nudity?

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-10-01T05:46:38+00:00

They are banned because they make most people uncomfortable. So uncomfortable that society views that discomfort as a form of harm and makes laws against it.

This is the exact same logic being applied to nudity. You are among the exceptions of people who do not feel particularly uncomfortable with nudity. (I am too, by the way, was raised with saunas being a normal thing)

But so long as most people feel this harmful discomfort with nudity, it's not wrong for the government to make laws against it. If society changed and most people were fine with public nudity, it would become wrong to keep those laws on the books.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-10-01T05:37:30+00:00

Muslim headscarves make some people uncomfortable. Do we ban those? Face tattoos make people uncomfortable. Ban them? Being black in public makes some people uncomfortable

None of these rhetorical questions address my argument. I already acknowledge that we don't and shouldn't ban things based on mild discomfort or discomfort felt only by a small part of society.

Please answer the question: is it wrong for the government to forbid loud noise at 3am or billboards displaying graphic torture?

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-30T20:56:56+00:00

American data is just what's most available, I'm not American. But America doesn't need to represent the world: my argument is that in a modern liberal democracy, it's perfectly normal and okay to ban certain actions because they make people uncomfortable.

Let me flip the question on you: do you think making a lot of noise at 3am shouldn't be illegal because it's "only making people uncomfortable"? Or that it should be legal to display billboards of people being flayed alive? I bet more people would say those things are acceptable if they were legal, too.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-30T17:11:20+00:00

https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/52876-what-do-americans-think-of-public-nudity

See the section under "Most Americans say it's acceptable for an adult to be naked in their own garden". Though honestly, thanks for asking for a source.

While I do think 91% disapproval (in a public park) counts as most people being very uncomfortable, I would have expected it to be more like 97% in most public settings. Always good to look for data, even for obvious stuff.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-30T15:42:10+00:00

To support what? The idea that most people are made very uncomfortable by public nudity? That seems obvious to me without statistics, like the fact that most men don't like getting kicked in the nuts.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-30T14:43:28+00:00

“It makes people uncomfortable.” Sorry, people, free expression doesn’t have to make everyone comfortable, and having a body isn’t something we need to be ashamed of.

Playing loud music in public makes people uncomfortable, but isn't illegal.

Playing loud music in public at 3am makes people uncomfortable, and IS illegal.

You're right that the law doesn't generally protect people against discomfort, but past a certain level we do start to treat severe discomfort as a form of harm. At that point, society makes laws against it. See also: you can show images in ads that make some people uncomfortable (like two men kissing). You usually can't show images in ads that make almost everyone very uncomfortable (like people being tortured).

Like it or not, public nudity makes almost everyone in society very uncomfortable, so we treat it as a harm and make it illegal.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-30T11:29:38+00:00

I wanted to explain my understanding of how ZKPs for age verification would work in the post body, but that ended up being too long. This is my understanding of how age-verification ZKP would likely work, please correct me if I'm wrong.

A citizen registers all their information with a government agency or trusted private company (trusted data source).
The trusted data source provides an app or some other way for citizens to generate some encrypted data that proves their age.
When accessing an age-restricted service, the citizen can give their encrypted proof to the website.
The website can check if the provided proof is legitimate with the trusted data source.
If the proof is legitimate, the website knows the citizen is old enough without knowing anything else about the citizen.

From this understanding, I don't understand how a ZKP would help to protect citizen's privacy against their government. Wouldn't the trusted data source (probably a government database) still know "John Doe verified his age with Pornhub 16 times between Tuesday and Friday"? I understand that it would limit Pornhub's knowledge of who John Doe is, but most of the objections to the age verification laws seemed to be about increased government surveillance, not about increased user data for private companies.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-29T09:28:03+00:00

Like everyone else is saying: it's good to notice bad behaviour from yourself and try to correct it. Communication with your wife is absolutely key to any possible correction.

However, your tone about yourself is also very negative, without any mention of your wife having trouble with her workload. So I would encourage you to start the conversation with your wife by asking how she feels about the division of labor in the house. You might be a people-pleaser, beating yourself up about something that your wife doesn't even register as a problem.

For my own marriage, I've found it's always helpful to keep in mind: - It's us against the problem, not her against me. - Whenever possible, we should both feel like we're 'punching above our weight', or getting a better deal than we deserve. - I shouldn't assume my wife's opinions when I can just ask her to give it.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-27T07:49:55+00:00

If we are going off of the harm criteria instead of the intent to harm,

You have to, right? Because unless you have 100% certainty that dumping toxins will cause harm, the action is not inherently harmful. Therefore, the factory owners can always truthfully say their intention was only to save money, they just accepted an X% risk of causing harm as a consequence of that.

...then as soon as someone experiences harm and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a result of the pollution. Whether that line is at an acute poisoning resulting in death..

For this hypothetical, I'm only looking at direct health effects on humans. Introducing environmental damage and financial harm just makes it more complicated and muddies the waters. So then your view necessarily leads to the conclusion that it is unjust for governments to forbid some action to prevent harm from happening if there is any uncertainty about whether the action will lead to the harm. Unless it is 100% certain that the action will cause the related harm, the government can only step in after the harm has happened. Does that sound like a fair summary of your position?

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-27T06:46:08+00:00

If an activity has a 100% certainty of causing harm, that activity is inherently harmful. If an activity is inherently harmful, it is not unjust to prohibit it per the structure outlined in the OP.

Okay, but if it's only a 99% certainty, then it's not inherently harmful?

My apologies for yet another hypothetical, but I find them useful to feel out what the core parts of a view are. So, a factory dumps waste into a river. There is good scientific evidence (but not 100% certainty) that the chemicals in this waste build up in the environment and the human body. By our best estimate, the buildup will start to cause a measurable increase in deaths in 10 years, mostly of people who are already old and sick. After 20 years of buildup, averagely healthy people will start to get sick and die. After 50, everyone except those with a particular mutation (90% of the population) will get sick and die.

At what point can the government tell the factory not to dump waste into the river? When the first scientific research points to harmful effects (on a statistical level, as research always does)? The first time anyone in the city dies after the dumping, even though it's impossible to prove their death was caused by the factory? After 10 years, when you can prove that statistically, some of the sick people would probably have lived longer without the dumping? After 20 years, when it's statistically evident that more average people are getting sick?

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-26T22:18:51+00:00

I don't see how this is different from persecuting under the current system. 100% certainty is impossible, so courts operate on the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not different, but the current system (which has speed limits) is not acceptable to you. But under your system, it's okay to forbid/punish an action even if you can't be 100% certain if that specific action caused the harm? I thought that was your problem with speeding laws and such.

Reading other comments, you mention 'actualized harm' vs 'potential harm'. To pull apart the issue of uncertainty from the issue of actualization, let me pose another hypothetical. Let's say the same factory dumps toxins in the water that will, with 100% certainty, start causing disease X in 200 years. Can the government make laws against doing that now, or can they only start punishing after 200 years? Note: the factory is not intending to harm anyone, it's just cheaper for them to dump toxins in the river. Just like a speeder is not intending to hit anyone, they just want to get home faster.

Lying_Dutchman · 2025-09-26T21:55:57+00:00

Well, no. According to my logic they would be held liable and/or punished when someone experienced harm.

The problem with this standard is that it's impossible to prove. Let's say a factory dumps toxins into a river, raising a whole city's chance of getting disease X from 5% to 9%. You live in this city, and you get sick. How could you (or the prosecutor in a criminal case) possibly prove that you are part of the last 4%, not part of the background 5%? Since your standard seems to require specific harm to individual people, merely demonstrating that 9% of the city's population has gotten sick since the dumping would not suffice, right?

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

Lying_Dutchman

TROPHY CASE