Self-defense against state violence. Death threats against corporate execs and politicians who condemn thousands to death daily.
Sleeping in a car that you own.
I think there should be restrictions on where to park for this, but in general people found sleeping in cars should be protected by the law against theft and harassment.
I don’t think it’s illegal, but rather where you park can make it illegal.
In the US, it depends on the State or municipality. I’ve slept in my car plenty of times while traveling, although it was often in parking garages and out of sight, so maybe I just got lucky. It will really depend on how uptight the town or store manager is. I’ve heard that RVs are generally welcome at Walmarts, so I’d like to heard the logic on why RV are ok to sleep in but not cars.
Instead of being robbed and harassed by the law? Agreed.
That’s what I’m going for, yes.
Restrictions on where you can park
Nah fuck that noise. This is how you let them corral you into slums.
Park where you want. Out front of parliament, the prime minister’s house, on the street out front a billionaires house, wherever. If they don’t like it, them they should fix it.
Camp anyplace you need to camp. Keep your car where it belongs.
A public parking lot or parking space seems to be a good place for a car.
It is. It is a good place to park. That’s not what is being discussed.
Having a place to live is an unmitigable human need. Having a car is not. A car left too long on public land should become a shelter for OTHERS.
I think you might have missed something in your zeal, which is fine. We need more passion about such things. Just directed the right way.
But the point being made before your comment was that anyone should be allowed to sleep -at least in their own- car, which you seem to agree with. And any public parking places where a car can sleep should be fine for a human to also sleep within said car, which you also seem to agree with.
This isn’t about having a car or not, and its not really about sleeping in a car you find, it’s about how it’s used if it is owned by the person who wants to use it that’s being discussed. So if someone already owns a car and wants or needs to live out of it, we can agree that’s ok (everyone involved in this thread is agreeing here). And if there’s a place that is appropriate for cars to be whether anyone is in them or not, that place should be fine with people sleeping as well. (Pretty sure everyone is agreeing with that, too)
So, everyone agrees, yay! No need to condescend when everyone agrees with you :)
If you want to expand the topic to shelter wherever you find it, that’s a great conversation to have. It’s just not actually the one being had.
A car being used as a place to live becomes a need for the owner of said car.
Well, I mean, someone’s evil ex shouldn’t park in front of their house, not in a handicap spot, not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone’s lawn.
But yeah, any place where parking is allowed, sleeping while parked should be allowed and protected.
All of those places already have laws preventing those. Don’t need a special one for no sleep in car in those instances
parks perpendicular to the flow of traffic across the California 101 freeway
Sleeping anywhere. It should be illegal to wake somebody up, unless there’s reason to believe they require medical intervention.
Waking someone up being illegal is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard
It is illegal to wake up children who are napping in childcare. Sleeping is a fundamental need, and waking somebody is akin to grabbing their sandwich and throwing it on the ground.
Waking up an adult is really different from waking up a kid. It should only be illegal if it’s being done repeatedly and purposely to someone who’s just sleeping and not at the detriment of anyone else. (Unless they asked them too)
I mean sure there are specific instances where waking somebody makes sense. On transit if you know their stop or the end of the line. If they are in danger. If they are covered in vomit or if they wet themselves. But otherwise, you can’t leave it to law enforcement to make humane decisions so don’t give them the choice.
Just imagine like a really nice town and an old retired guy who fell asleep on a park bench with a good book. Not in danger, not bothering anyone, don’t wake him.
The same dignity applies to a junkie who is passed out on the lawn. This could be his only quality sleep in the past 20 hours. You don’t know if somebody asleep has narcolepsy. You don’t know how much they need it. But they do need it or they’d be awake.
Again it’s a need not a want. Deprivation of sleep is a torture technique. Police officers are using it legally without repercussion right now. I’m saying, it should be considered a form of assault and/or harassment under the law. It is an act of violence. And it’s not right.
Agreed. Hope you got room in your bed cuz I’m joining you tonight.
If you make it through the door, and you manage to fall asleep, I won’t kick you out until you wake up.
Yay, none in my country!
Some banana republic? Or a country like Switzerland that’s probably missing from the list, but not because there aren’t any banned books?
You really think it’s common for free countries to ban books. I’m pretty sure my country of Finland (not "some banana republic) does not have any banned books.
Not a banana republic. And we simply don’t ban books. Like, some might be banned implicitly because of illegal content, for example a child porn book wouldn’t really fly here, but that’s because of the content, book itself wouldn’t be banned, you would just go to prison for sharing child pornography. I assume I could find other illegal content that would result in an implicit ban.
But there’s no government body that even can create a list of books that should be banned. Hopefully it stays that way.
Freedom of speech in China.
There is freedom of speech.
Just not freedom after speech.
For now all I can think of are drugs (every single one, including opioids) and euthanasia (not just for terminal diseases, should be available for everyone who decides to).
With limits
Fentanyl, for example, should require doctors guidance at least, and forced medical help to get off of it when you’re displaying addiction behavior.
Euthanasia should also be legal, but with strict rules. You want to avoid someone off themselves just because they’re having a bad day
People already choose to buy and use fentanyl without a doctors prescription, why should they be treated as criminals? If a junkie commits crimes because they are high, that should be criminal, and if a junkie commits crimes to get more drugs, that should be criminal, but I do not see a purpose in criminalizing fentanyl for consenting adults.
You prohibit Fentanyl because it’s so friggin addictive and lethal. Most drugs are rather harmless (as alcohol is “harmless”) so sure. Just keep an eye on people and where someone falls off the wagon, have them undergoing forced treatment to get them back okay again.
Fentanyl is like meth, it’s too much, there is no such thing as a little bit or any good outcome
Abortion. No specific circumstances needed. If a woman wants an abortion, it should be allowed. There is no one getting late term abortions that didn’t want the child and something tragic happened and now they need one.
At what point is it no longer an abortion, though?
That’s not a gotcha, it’s very simple. Doctors decide whether a fetus is viable outside the womb, and if it is, then it’s a birth. The line for this keeps shifting earlier as neonatal medicine improves. Doctors aren’t going to destroy a child that can live, they took a hypocratic oath. Once it’s outside on its own, “my body my choice” no longer applies.
In fact, the opposite is frequently a problem, where enormous intervention is given to keep an extremely premature child alive when all you are doing is guaranteeing them a lot of suffering. There are plenty of parents who wish in retrospect that the option to simply not intervene had been offered, because they see how much pain their child goes through. It is already perfectly fine, legally and ethically, to decide that a child is simply too weak to have a good quality of life. You can offer them milk (if they feed on their own that is a sign of good health and probably won’t ever happen with a case like this), but after that hold them and say goodbye.
People talking about late term abortions and killing babies after ripping them out of the womb at 40 weeks are completely divorced from reality. That’s Alex Jones level bullshit.
As a caveat to the last sentence, it’s definitely possible for women to not know they’re pregnant until very late in the process. There have even been women who only found out they were pregnant when they went into labor.
I know a family that had 6 hours of pregnancy, and they, like most in the same situation, did not seek a late term abortion. By the time labor sets in, the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, so anyone seeking to end the pregnancy without taking possession of a child, should be allowed to simply demand that the fetus be removed. It should be up to the medical staff to decide how.
Poverty, being unhoused.
Felons should have the right to vote.
Seeking gender affirming care.
Wait a minute, felons can run for president but can’t vote who to be president?
Are we talking about incarcerated felons, or felons that served their time?
Why not both?
Yes both.
Hmmm. Hmmm? I didn’t really think about incarcerated before. But I suppose if you were imprisoned for a law you don’t agree with, the way to change it is voting.
By keeping prisoners from voting, you prevent law from changing.
The proper way is to respect the law and vote for it’s change, not to break the law and cry after a fact.
I’ve been dating my boyfriend since before it was legal. Thank you for your input, but no. Just no.
Why would it matter if felons voted while imprisoned or free? We should not be incarcerating so many people that their vote has anything beyond a trivial, marginal affect. That is to say the real question is why do we convict so many people of crimes?
All drugs except opioids.
I have to clarify that that doesn’t include using hard drugs in public or operating heavy machinery under the influence ofcourse.
Why should opioids be illegal?
Because they are an absolute poison. And just like other poisons they should be illegal.
They serve a legitimate purpose, but can be abused like many other things. Making them illegal just makes addiction a crime.
Prostitution. Keeping it illegal makes it so much worse for everyone involved except human traffickers.
It would be such a large boost in tax revenue at the very least.
I love the idea of someone being brought up for tax evasion charges because they were only claiming a blowjob rate when they were doing anal.
This could be the most interesting audit in the history of the IRS.
In my country, to crack down on tax evasion by small businesses people can give their tax payer number when they buy something (say food at a restaurant) and a copy of the receipt automatically gets passed on to the taxman (there’s a lottery on those and people can get some money from it, which is how the State incentivises people to do this, plus you can get some tax discounts on some kinds of expenses such as medicine).
All this to say that the idea of the taxman getting a copy of an itemized receipt for sex work services is just delicious.
PS: Around here sex work is unregulated, meaning not illegal (though profiting of other people’s sex work is illegal) but not explicitly legal and regulated.
Weed (not legal in all states)
Most hallucinogens (at least for medical or supervised use)
Being trans (lotta states trying to ban me)
Being gay (they’re probably next)
Abortion (many states ban this now)
Free healthcare (not technically illegal, per se)
Being homeless
Polyamory (not technically illegal afaik, but there are a lot of legal benefits that married couples get which aren’t extended to polyamorous relationships due marriage being restricted to couples only)
The list goes on because while there are many basic things that aren’t technically illegal, the system is set up in a way to fuck you because of the required profit motive behind offering basic necessities in a capitalist society.
The first five you listed are all one thing: bodily autonomy. We each have the right to do to ourselves whatever the fuck we want.
We really need a constitutional amendment in the United States to explicitly protect bodily autonomy
Not in the US we don’t lmao.
Polygamy seems like a way to have dysfuntional families and kids that suffer from ptsd
polygamy and polyamoury are not the same thing. You’re welcome. I often do that with actors, thinking two different people are the same person.
Why?
Let’s break the matter in two parts:
if the adults involved in such a relationship are all informed and consenting, no harm is done to anyone. No one has the right to interfere or comment on those people way of life.
If, eventually, there is the decision to have children, the change of them growing in a dysfunctional home is as high as any other.
The family may be unconventional but it does not imply nor it is a given it is unable to properly care for children and pass down values of good individual and social behaviour.
-
I do not agree that people in such kind of relationship are any worse for each other than in normal case. At least if they entered it knowing that it’s something that works for them. So i won’t dispute this.
-
About children tho…isn’t it actually proven that children need designated father and mother figure? I know of few people who didn’t have father figure and they are all kinda damaged. Though probably such family could simply designate two main guardians and treat rest as close aunts and uncles…so dunno, maybe a moot point.
Are all orphans or children of single parents unbalanced? I can’t put much credit to that claim. The same with children of same sex couples.
Uncommon life and family arrangements have existed since humans are humans. That is why all societies have edicts on what “normal” relations are and why deviations from the norm have been so persecuted throughout history.
Yet…
China has an ethnic group where one woman has several husbands. The children stay with the mother, while the men have the role of providing for the household. Suffice to say it is hard to know which man conceived which child, so they are colectively considered fathers to all children.
In Africa and the Arabian peninsula it is common fare for one man to have several wives and where there is that tradition all women are addressed as mother by all children.
Again in Africa, there is a tribe where children are raised, from very young age, by their uncles and aunts, away from the parents.
The first time I read about it, what came to mind was two brothers or sisters exchanging children, like a sort of perverse hostage situation: “you raise mine, I raise yours, nobody kills the other!”
Yes, I have a strange mind.
Divorced couples. Remade families. Same sex couples. Adoptive parents and foster families. Non standard families, whatever that may mean. And then we have the “really” out there arrangements, like poliamory. How about nudists? Or hippies?
So what?
Growing up, there was this family in my street that was composed of two couples, where each woman had given birth to a child of each man. The four lived as a small community, where all children address both men as father and all women as mother.
None of them grew up “fucked up”. Or did, only just as much as anyone else.
I admit I lack the ground to stand on here, so I’ll back off. Most of my experience is more of me and people I know - I know I had sbortcomings and mental problems due to parents divorce, again know few people who were raised withoit father. That’s mostly what influences my view.
However examples you raised are hella interesting, but I also cannot help but wonder how these children grow up compared to 2+1/2+2 family. There are for sure differences - after all even higher amount of children bears high influence - but I wonder what these are. Will look for it later. Thanks for dropping these.
You’re welcome. Always glad to help someone broaden their horizons and ideas. Keep reading and keep thinking and exchanging ideas with others. It’s the best way to evolve as an individual.
No.
-
Who said anything about having kids lmao? Imagine thinking anyone competent enough to handle a polyamorous relationship would be irresponsible enough to have kids in this day and age when we’re staring down the barrel of climate change and all the oil barons and coal dealers are pulling the trigger as hard as possible.
Takes a deep breath hooookay. So, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. For one thing, polygamy tends to be traditionally associated with a strict hierarchy in which one individual holds control. It also tends to be associated with religious/cult systems, doesn’t require the consent or knowledge of all members, and quite frankly is probably more comparable to being a whitewashed form of harem than an actual loving relationship type. Finally, it specifically refers to people who are married to one another, regardless of feelings or consent.
Polyamory, on the other hand, requires consent. Instead of referring to many marriages, it refers to many loves. It requires that all members stay informed and consenting, otherwise the relationship can’t continue. It requires you to be communicative and empathetic to the needs of the other members while also caring for yourself. Equating polyamory with polygamy is a bit like equating Linux with Windows. The end result can appear similar at first glance, but the mechanics are very different under the hood.
As someone with experience in poly relationships, (gently) you know not of what you speak. I’m merely a data point, but there is proof behind it vs ‘seems’ and assumptions.
So what’s your thoughts about gay couples with children?
Two consenting adults is fine regardless of gender, the problem with polygamy is that when you have more than 2 people in a romantic relationship, its not gonna be equal.
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
Polygamy often takes the form of a person participating in several separate marriages. Like imagine children of different families sharing Parent A with other families, but with their own Parent B. But Parent A is gonna have a favorite of one of the Parent B. So the other Parent B are gonna get jealous. Its a unstable relationship.
You shouldn’t talk about things you clearly don’t understand.
or even know the right words for
This opinion is based on your extensive personal experience with polyamorous relationships I take it?
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
What are you basing this on?
I disagree that it always is or will inherently become that way. Even two individuals in a relationship often do not function well when a third (a child) is introduced. leading to jealousy, abuse, neglect, etc. When forced to remain in said relationship.
I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the ‘norm’, and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our ‘norm’ of monogamous parent couples.
There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.
I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.
Rescuing animals who would be harmed by their owners without intervention.
For some people, existing.
For adults, literally everything that doesn’t directly hurt other living things.
Kids 16 and under accessing social media. Responsibility should be on their parents and household, not the government.
Gonna have to disagree with you for two reasons:
- it’s not actually illegal (except in Australia soon I guess)
- when everyone’s a user, the social aspect makes it practically impossible for single households to impose limits without making their child a pariah
Decriminalize all drugs. Drug addicts have enough problems with them without also getting the boot from the legal system.
Ya but not selling hard drugs.
So you’re saying they should be free?
Of course not, there is a reason some things are banned, like extremely dangerous things and I put hard drugs in that category.
So why do you answer with “Ya but …” but to “Decriminalize all drugs” … when actually you just mean “no”? The keyword was “all” here.
Usually when people say “decriminalise” it isn’t for crack. It’s for marijuana, psych drugs, recreationnaly drugs mostly.
That is why I said “but” to spell it out better. Decriminalising the selling of crack & meth is just 100% stupid.
Usually when people say “decriminalise” it isn’t for crack. It’s for marijuana mostly.
But when they say “decriminalise ALL drugs” … they are not mostly talking about marijuana. They are talking about ALL drugs.
Decriminalising the selling of crack & meth is just 100% stupid.
I’m not familiar with these US derivatives, but Cocaine and amphetamine/MDMA should totally be legal, nothing stupid about it. They are excellent drugs.
So for you, a drug addict should be treated the same as a druglord? There is a distinction here, addict and seller.
Do you seriously think cocaine should be sold like cigarettes? If you do then you have a lot to learn about drug abuse IMO.
I should have been more precise, you’re right: decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
There is a valid reason why you don’t want Bobby Noname to cook meth and that is you don’t want him to blow up the whole block because his meth lab practices are unsafe.
Thank you!
Yes, this is 100% the right thing to do IMO.
Feel free to sell them. Just tax them so high that any profits are nullified, then the tax can be used to help those that need help getting off the drug. (Though this would likely put it right back where it is, and the black market would continue to supply)
Just tax them so high that any profits are nullified
So, make them illegal in any meaningful sense and drive them back underground. Dude, pick one.
Got tired and couldn’t read the whole post?
