OshaqHennessey

I can read just fine. You're asserting that climate change should be embraced because we'll learn to "live with it." I'm pointing out that you're ignoring a giant mountain of evidence that says the best case scenario is that ten percent of our species survives. So, if we're understanding each other correctly, ninety percent of humans dying is the "new normal" you're saying we should be cool with, and I'm not cool with that.

I just realized you're from .ml. Please block me, I can't stand you assholes anyway.

Ok then, it sounds like you think the only way to improve society is to replace its members with ones who are "more sensible," as defined by you. Sorry, but I'm not sure how to help you with that one either.

You're right, capitalism won't make the Earth completely uninhabitable. Many mass extinction events have occurred in our planet's past, and life has always eventually recovered (obviously).

However, capitalism will destroy our planet's ability to sustain our society, and eventually our species, and it is doing so at an alarming rate. To disagree, at this point, is to ignore an amout of scientific evidence so substantial, it amounts similarly to denying the Earth is round.

It sounds like you're saying the only way to better a society is to replace all its members with ones who already agree with you. If so, I'm not real sure how to help you. Good luck with that.

Millions of Californians already legally own Glock handguns. Enforcing the law in this case refers to confiscating the legally acquired private property of citizens who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own their property. How do you reconcile your suggestion to enforce the law with those Californians' fourth ammendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of private property and their six ammendment right to due process?

Incentive programs are one idea, but they do have some problems, the biggest and most obvious being: how much do you offer, who's going to pay for it, and what do you do with them once you have them?

A Glock handgun retails for $500 - 600. Do you offer that much? If so, that will be very expensive, and now that they're banned, you won't be able to sell them for nearly that much to recoup the cost. If you offer less, how is that not a violation of one's fourth ammendment right against unreasonable seizure of private property?

Should gun manufacturers be responsible for bearing the cost of reimbursing every Glock-owning Californian, or should the citizens who voted for the measure pay for it since they wanted it?

Once all the Glocks are confiscated, what should be done with them? If they're sold, that just moves the "problem" elsewhere. If they're destroyed, that's a waste of perfectly working steel and polymer you just paid good money for.

I'm glad we agree the root causes of violence need to be addressed.

I don't think bans can ever be fully effective unless we, as a society, are willing to violate every gun owner's second, fourth, fifth, and sixth ammendment rights; I believe that may be some of the problems you're referring to.

Personally, in addition the other changes you mentioned, I'd like to see a very small tax on gun sales to fund firearm safety and education programs in public schools. If the US wants to embrace firearms as a part of our culture the same way we do cars, I think it's reasonable to require firearm education the same way we require driver's education.

Lottery winnings are paid out from a pool of money that's filled by ticket purchases; every dollar won comes from the pocket of someone who bought a ticket and lost, after the lottery company takes their cut. Even if the winners aren't exploiting the losers directly, the system itself is exploitative, and any winnings are derived from that exploitation. As the old saying goes, "the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math."

No clue, actually. I know you can sort based on votes, but I've never thought about how the main feed works. I'll have to look it up later, if I can remember

In the US, absolutely. It's probably one of the most common, followed by "taking the Browns to the Super Bowl."

California has the strictest gun laws in the US. They passed legislation a few weeks ago that bans owning any Glock handguns in the state (unless you're a cop, of course) that goes into effect Jan 1, 2026. AR-15s and all other so called "assault weapons" have been banned for years. Plus, it's still illegal to shoot people. What else do you think needs to happen?

On Reddit, the algorithm that determines which posts appear on the main page is heavily influenced by the number of up/down votes for the post and its comments.

Vaping. Juul is a brand of disposable vape.