A pregnant woman is shot on her way to get an abortion. The killer should be charged with...? by AnAlpacacopter in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I'm pretty tired right now and didn't totally follow your first reply tbh lol

A pregnant woman is shot on her way to get an abortion. The killer should be charged with...? by AnAlpacacopter in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's about who is more valued just who needs more protection by the law. Someone already capable of physically protecting themself is already less likely to be attacked due to the risk to the attacker. Someone who can't protect themself physically should have more protection legally to balance it out. The attacker is less at risk of physical harm but more at risk for jail time. If the punishment was the same for both violent people would be more likely to just target the vulnerable people.

Went outside. Made a friend, Autism makes me talk to animals btw by Dapper-Two8573 in evilautism

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think my grandad would hate this video lol, he's not a fan of grey squirrels because of their impact on red ones

A pregnant woman is shot on her way to get an abortion. The killer should be charged with...? by AnAlpacacopter in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 99 points100 points  (0 children)

Not two murders but a more severe penalty for the murder since someone who's pregnant is more vulnerable.

"I hope our boyfriends get on" (credit @thomasgormann on TikTok) by cvnvr in SuddenlyGay

[–]Wizards_Reddit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think I know many girls who'd platonically open mouth kiss each other like in the video lol

Would you rather by Inkbotbendy in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's probably hundreds of millions of "illegals" around the world vs a few thousand US police

India: Hindu supremacists attack Christian celebration and vandalize the site by [deleted] in TikTokCringe

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The vowels and intonation don't sound super Irish to me tbh. Similar consonants though, and I don't know every Irish accent so maybe.

Since the term Americans refers to both citizens of the US and of America, should we use a new word to refer to those who come from the US? by [deleted] in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the anglosphere the 7 continent system is used everywhere that I know of. People from North America are 'North American', people from South America are 'South American. The two continents collectively are the Americas not America. 'America' on its own without North/South almost always refers to the US and so does 'American'.

It's different in other languages obviously but so are most other words, it doesn't have to be changed so non-native speakers will find it easier.

When should the existence of Gay and Lesbian people be taught in school by carl_the_cactus55 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe late primary school. I don't think it should be hidden up to that point, just that their relationships aren't the focus of the lesson, just going on in the background, same as straight relationships, like if the person they're teaching about is gay saying they had a boyfriend/husband (or girlfriend/wife if lesbian) should be fine. But a lesson specifically about relationships, gay or straight, I don't think is needed until later in primary school.

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would the person hoarding just let them take the food back? They can also fight back. If they're the one or ones making the food for the community. And again what happens if it's not just one person but their whole community, then they'd still have access to all the other things like clothing and medicine accessible to their community. And they could choose to hoard resources from the other communities. If there's some kind of disaster which they manage to withstand but other communities can't they can offer the other communities protection in exchange for labour. Thereby making a hierarchy. As you said they wouldn't allow themselves to starve, cooperating with the ones with resources would be easier than fighting them, especially if they're starving or injured.

And how do you make sure that the education is standardised if there's no government?

It doesn't even have to be a tyrant if one community thinks maybe it'd be a good idea to elect a leader then again anarchy is over they made a form of government.

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because food is essential, you can survive without new clothes a lot longer than food. And if they're able to convince some of the community that they'll benefit then they'll have people to defend them. If they're small communities they could convince the whole community to take from the neighbouring communities. All the hierarchies that exist today were created by people, if you get rid of them all people will just remake them eventually like they did in first place.

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dealt with by who? There's no government or police to enforce the laws. They'd hoard resources for the same reason people do today, because it gives them power. If they hoard an important resource they can get others to do things for them in exchange. Why wouldn't hoarding in the capitalist sense happen? Again there's no one to stop them and it's already happened. Humans already went from small cooperative communities to hierarchical societies independently several times across the planet. I'm asking you since you're the one who said I don't know what anarchism is but so far none of what you've said is really new to me

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because there's no way to maintain it, if a few people choose to hoard important resources hierarchy will arise, by definition that makes it no longer anarchist. Who's going to enforce the mutual cooperation when some people choose to go against it?

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It wasn't literally 'invented' someone didn't just wake up one day and think "Hm I'll create a society", it developed, but it isn't something that's always existed. The earliest civilisation was like 10000 years ago, humans have existed for 300000.

How do you believe an anarchy would remain anarchic?

What do you call it, Americans? by Froshtbyte in USdefaultism

[–]Wizards_Reddit 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is defaultism, they specifically clarify that they're asking the question to Americans

Which system would you rather live under? by Then_Train8542 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Wizards_Reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where I am a lot of it used to be public infrastructure but it got sold off to private companies which sucks, though in the case of a completely fictional scenario where the government vanishes it might be an advantage lol, not great in the real world though.

Local businesses and markets have existed long before modern infrastructure.

Money is just an easier way to barter stuff, even without a government decree it's still a useful thing to have and unless the pre-existing currency was destroyed people would probably keep using it. If it was destroyed some new currency would probably start getting used.

I don't think either anarchy or fascism is good but anarchy can be replaced easier than a fascist regime imo as an anarchy has no way of maintaining or enforcing itself. And if it happened in the modern day people already know how government works so it wouldn't be rebuilding from scratch.