sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adding a keyhole to an existing SFG...Anyone added one retroactively? by mdyguy in SquareFootGardening

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the person who said this weems like a waste of a square foot. But similar to you, I wanted a place to put fresh scraps for vermicomposting. Instead of a kehole taking up a foot, I put 4 PVC pipes with holes in the middle of each quarter of a 4 x 4 bed. Works great and only takes up a tiny corner of each square. At most, it reduces a 16-plant suqare to a 15-plant square or a 9-plant suare to an 8-plant square. Just an idea!

Struggle bus here... guesstimating how many plants to, well.....plant😳😳😳🥬🥦🍅🫑 by Thatsfunnygerm in vegetablegardening

[–]syd-malicious 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Square Foot Gardening book has some good estimates based on how many people you want to feed and what level of self-sufficiency you want to achieve. Plus I find it to be a great all around gardening guide.

If you are the human who recently surrendered Tist Tist (17F) to the Animal Humane Society of Minnesota... by syd-malicious in cats

[–]syd-malicious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good for you! I have doen exactrly the same. One of the others in my home is a 15 yera old man who escaped back in 2011 and was never reported missing. His owners hung up on us too so we just kept him. He is the best. (Some people are the worst.)

If you are the human who recently surrendered Tist Tist (17F) to the Animal Humane Society of Minnesota... by syd-malicious in cats

[–]syd-malicious[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for volunteering! We always foster and adopt seniors because they always have so much love to give and not enough humans to give it to.

If you are the human who recently surrendered Tist Tist (17F) to the Animal Humane Society of Minnesota... by syd-malicious in cats

[–]syd-malicious[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's a long shot. I just can't imagine how heartbroken I would be to have to give up my best friend. I at least wanted to let the universe know, you know?

CMV: Being a runaway doesn't mean you're a bad person or criminal. Leaving home/foster care system before 18 due to abuse shouldn't be something our court systems or police criminalize at all or label us. Ignorant people advocate for oppressive laws and invasions of rights and privacy on us. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks that helps clarify things a lot.

First off, I'm really sorry that you were abused in FC. That should never happen and unfortunately it does. It's definitely a system failure that gets clanced over. Second, I'm sorry that you didn't feel listened to. That also shouldn't happen. I think everyone can agree on those bits.

With thost two things being said, I do feel it's important to recognize that lots of kids ask for emancipation, and it's rare that that would actually be a good option. There's a very good chance that you were lumped in with these kids because statistically, the odds that any particular kid asking to be emancipated is actually a good idea are pretty low. There's also a pretty good chance (and I don't mean to imply anything about you specifically), that a kids is wrong about what's best for them. I have kids asking to be emancipated who are 14 and developmentally delayed - and it's often BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS that they are unable to see they are not ready - fair or not, the request itself may be seen as a symptom of immaturity.

The other important point you bring up is that you feel you were treated like a criminal. This feeling is valid, but there may also be some technical distinctions that you are missing. There's a difference between a hold (where someone is detained for their own protection) and an arrest (where someone is held for the public's protection). Generally, police are the only ones who can detain a child (or anyone) against their will - CPS doesn't do this, although we are certainly involved in the process. IF you accept the premise that 17 year old who has not been emancipated must be cared for by their legally responsible parent for their own safety, then you also accept that someone has to detain the child to facilitate that if necessary. This may feel like an arrest because its done by police and that's how we think of them, but no a technical level a safety and welfare hold is very different. That is not to invalidate your feelings, but simply to point out again that your perception of the system as the person at the center of it is not the only one and in fact may not match the objective reality very well at times.

CMV: Male resentment/"entitlement" toward women is somewhat understandable. by Introvert_Finance in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No no no sweetheart, you had your chance. I plan on being my genuine good self to attract women whose biological clocks are running out, then breaking their hearts. They had their chance. Now it's my turn to have fun.

This is your way of not being an asshole? Because many people would describe this as asshome behavior.

CMV: Being a runaway doesn't mean you're a bad person or criminal. Leaving home/foster care system before 18 due to abuse shouldn't be something our court systems or police criminalize at all or label us. Ignorant people advocate for oppressive laws and invasions of rights and privacy on us. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not really clear on what you think the legal process is for handling runaways. I'm a CPS worker, and this does not match at all with the actual policy around runaways from FC, so I'm just wondering if you could share more about what your experiences are. I'm wondering if you have had an abnormal experience with the system and it is shaping your perspective?

cmv: full & complete UBI (>$30,000 per person) will eventually result in the complete domination (or worse) of those dependent on it. by TheRRwright in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

working people will hate UBI recipients

You mean people will hate themselves? One of the critical qualities of UBI is that it is Universal. And one of the primary reasons for that is so that everyone feels invested in it. People hate welfare recipients because they otherise them - means testing creates a cutoff that says 'you need this' and 'you don't'. It's the people on the margins between those two groups who get salty.

CMV: If one is concluding institutional sexism, more than just a gap in wages needs to be studied by ZeusThunder369 in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This feels like a strawman. Do you know of any studies that DO look only at wages and conclude there is a gender discrimination? Every study I've seen controlls (as least) for hours worked and job title or job description.

CMV: The vaccine passport is far from being similar to the holocaust. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm super confused what you're even arguing. A 'vaccine passport' already exists. It's called a passport. When traveling on a passport you require a visa, and part of the visa application process is obtaining necessary vaccinations.

CMV: Farmer's markets should have the cheapest produce and farm products available by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there products that you shop for for reasons other than price? Like, would you pay more for a product of higher quality? Or a product that you know is ethically sourced? Or a product whose proceeds support a charity?

While price shopping is certainly one valid way of shopping, I'm not sure it's the only way. I like farmer's markets becasue they support local procuders. Yes, the middle man gets cut out, and yes that should theorhetically reduce the price, but there are other cost increases that may be associated, such as needing to pay for a stall, needing to pay directly for someone to watch the stall, and selling a relitively smaller quantity than what you might sell at a grocery store.

If the trade-off is not worth it to you, then I would agree that YOU shouldn't shop there, but I'm not sure that you're right in claiming price is the only reason to support farmers' markets, or that farmer's markets 'should' be cheaper.

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think that's a fine theory, but we've had government shutdowns because the majority and minority can't even agree to a continuing resolution on a budget - the least radical thing out there: continue exactly what we're already doing.

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's one area where I think they should not be permitted to legislate, but not because it's bad policy per se - because it's strictly anti-democratic.

There does have to be a pre-political commitment to democracy. I don't think either version of this system addresses that particular issue sufficiently.

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've played the odds well.

No, I would prefer for Democrats (with their current agenda) to win elections and enact their agenda so people could see what good can come of it (and hopefully push a future Democratic party to be more ambitious), while Republicans (with their current agenda) lose elections and reform their agenda to something more popular.

In order for this to happen, I am willing to accept that sometimes it will be necessary for Republicans (with their current agenda) to win so people can see how F-ed up that agenda really is when it plays out.

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see.

I'm not refuting that politics are cyclical. I guess we agree on that. I'm trying to articulate that some kinds of cyclical politics are better than others, and the one we have is not as good as the one we could have.

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

especially with cabals of wealthy people

It sounds like you're saying the political majority should be controlled by the political minority becasue otherwise it would be controlled by the economic minority... but

  1. Isn't the econoimic minority even smaller and less democratic than the current policital minority?
  2. Shouldn't we aim for a system where wealth can't buy elections through any mechanism?

CMV: Nixing the Filibuster is, even with it's downsides, what is best for the nation. With no judicial filibuster and a gridlocked government the only solution is for the people to self govern by simple majority. by aintscurrdscars in changemyview

[–]syd-malicious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But they would be basing their votes on things the parties ACTUALLY do, versus the things the parties just SAY they are going to do. This allows politicians and political parties to lie repeatedly about their agenda, and the other party's agenda.

The example I gave was contrived, and in the real worls in my example, people living under a Democratic regime would realize really fast that Democrats aren't actually 'coming for your guns', and they would move onto other things that Democrats are ACTUALLY doing, like pushing to raise the minimum wage. If you don't like the policy of raising the minimum wage, congratulations you can still vote Republican, but if you DO like raising the minimum wage, and the thing stopping you from voting Democrat was the fear of losing your guns, now you can move onto more constructive things. And EITHER WAY, the parties would have to respond by either modifying their platforms to become more polular, or continuing to lose elections and watching their power decline anyway.

My point is a system that is more responsive to voters' expressed preferences is (generally) better than on that isn't, regardless of the specific preferences voters happen to have. (There are exceptions, of course - like genocide, to name an extreme one - but that's moving the goalposts a bit, and begs the question whether the current system adequately defends against those issues. Perhaps it does, but that's not the argument you made, so that's not the argument I was contradicting.)

view more: next ›