Supermarkets and businesses throwing food away and not allowing people to take it for free. (“If I can’t sell it nobody can have it”).
Would only work if you also made them immune from lawsuits due to people getting sick from eating expired food.
they already are under the good samaritan laws; they use lawsuits as an excuse for their shitty behavior.
Depends on your location. Good Samaritan laws vary widely.
Requiring the purchase or use of proprietary software or formats to view or submit public records.
Or medical. Or educational.
Collection of personally identifiable information on every website ever.
Corporate murder.
Members of Congress trading individual stocks, bonds, and other investments.
Boneless chicken with bones
Nutrition information based on unrealistic serving sizes.
I’ve seen an individually wrapped muffin “servings per pack: 2”.
Then there’s that Tom Scott video on how “zero calory” sweetener can be 4 calories.
Locked bootloaders
Qualified immunity for police officers. Prosecutors and judges basically get qualified immunity, too-- in that they can be caught engaging in all sorts of inappropriate and illegal activity without facing punishment because like police, it usually doesn’t even get to the extent of being charged.
I don’t even understand how qualified immunity could even be implemented without massive social unrest
Maybe fix the social issues as well so there’s no need to riot
I’d love to but even our most citizen aligned presidential terms only side with the people 20% of the time…
Unlimited political spending, particularly by corporations - see Citizen’s United.
Campaign financing in general. If you get enough signatures you’ll get a fixed amount of money from tax payers for your campaign. If you accept money from anyone else you’re barred from public office for life. End of corruption right there.
- not having the day off to vote
- FPTP
- unlimited funding from unrestricted sources in politics
- impunity for blatantly corrupt unelected political appointees
Etc.
Mutilating the bodies of people too young or otherwise unable to give consent.
I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.
“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”
Oh lmao I was way off, I was like “damn I’m surprised to see an anti abortion post at +9 -0 on lemmy, wtf?!”
I didn’t realize until I read your post lol.
So im asking this question as a person who has had to have an adult circumcision, I get the consent part, but why is this considered mutilation?
Again, im genuinely ignorant of the subject beyond medical requirements
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn’t happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn’t even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
vocabulary.com: “When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that’s a mutilation.”
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
If you chop someone’s leg off without consent for no good reason, that’s mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that’s a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that’s not your intent, but that’s the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
It’s not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn’t consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to “correct” children’s (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting?
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn’t want it. Whether it’s morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don’t have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
Do you think that children enjoy getting shots?
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.
Child marriages. Fact that’s legal in any US States is absurd.
Absurd? Yes. Surprising? No. If you put children in bathing suits to decide which is the hottest child? It’s not shocking to hear that they want to marry these hot children.
What the fuck really?
predatory microtransactions in video games that are essentially gambling.
I got zero problems with idiot gamers who continue to pay for and encourage this behavior.
victims don’t “encourage” their abusers. these are predatory practices designed to hook in as many people vulnerable to gambling addiction as possible. you have a misconception about the people that get hooked into these things. most of them are not “idiot gamers” nor oil barons, they are either children or neurodivergent people.
It’s naive to think that someone is at fault for falling prey to the psychological tactics publishers use to push people toward micro transactions.
If you think about it, it’s really not that different from saying people with gambling addictions deserve to be broke. Microtransactions might seem like an obvious scam to a lot of people, but a lot of people fall it and waiving it away and saying they deserve it will only make the problem worse.
I appreciate them in the cases where they subsidize a free game for me, when all they’re spending money on is some dressup doll equivalent
Lobbying.
It defintly is a slippery slope. I work for a municipalitylies utilities company. Part of my job is working with a utilities companies union to lobby politicians to make laws that will actually improve the way we can work. I think we actually do improve things for the German public by bringing desperately needed knowledge to the table.
But I think we are a small minority among lobbying institutions.
Forced arbitration clauses.
