Your solution is worse.

As is, it is the responsibility of the content provider to make sure that they are distributing only to people who are legally allowed to have it.

With age-verification the user has to prove that they are allowed to access the content, then the site can distribute it to them.

Your approach is to distribute the content by default and only deny it to ChildDevices. In order for this to work at all, you have to mandate that children can only use ChildDevices. This is soooo much worse than simply requiring that adults who want to see certain content have to prove that they can legally access it. If adults have reservations about providing ID for pornography, the loss of such content seems to be much less than denying children Internet access. (Although, I’m sure that Lemmings would disagree for obvious reasons).

“I compare your argument to refusing to stop setting off firecrackers…”

Which would be in error because they are disanalogous. There is a substantial psychological difference between word substitution, and a reflexive reaction to similar sounds, that are then evaluated to be different later on. Just because it seems instantaneous to you, doesn’t mean that the individual does not actually believe they are under fire even momentarily, can you say the same for someone reading the word “suicide”?

“I argue just the way I like”

Which is logically unsound.

“I’m trying to be considerate… something you don’t understand.”

All you are doing is patting yourself on the back over something that doesn’t matter. You may think that you are helping people, but you simply aren’t.

“A life as nice as you are”

Thank you. I think you are confusing refusing to pander to idiocy, with being mean. You can be an extremely beneficial person to others without endorsing every single view or action they make.

“consideration to my fellow human beings”.

Because your fellow human beings are so profoundly stupid as to not understand that “delete” and “kill” have the same semantic value in that sentence?

If you are going to argue for word replacement it should be for stylistic reasons (rhyming, alliteration, humour, etc), or semantic reasons, as in actually changing the meaning of the statement.

Changing the wording of statement, while retaining the same semantic value, does nothing to reduce offense when the semantic value is what would cause offense.

But that’s not socialism, is it?

Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can’t argue that the needs are being ignored.

But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for “Jesus was a socialist”, is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “you should vote for needs-based welfare programs”.

The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.

Later generations have more time to prepare for retirement, rather than simply axing the benefits of the people that have already retired.

Sure but what degree of influence is actually “radicalising” or a point of concern?

We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can’t just force people to accept them.

I think a good example of this was the “fall” of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn’t care because they never cared about him.

“A deradicalising effect”

I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.

If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren’t the radicals you need to be concerned about.

“And those people diffuse back into the general population”

Because that doesn’t happen to a greater degree when exposed to the “general population” on the same website?

You’re literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical, you’re not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.

“Arab spring …” So you cite an example of social activism that disastrously failed (by your own admission) to justify a similar action by your hand?

Even then it doesn’t disprove that individuals that contribute more are statistically more likely to be noticed when absent. If you want to have an impact, especially a positive one, it helps to not have anger as your sole motivator.

“So there is no ruling class”

What exactly is a ruling class to you? There will always be a deciding group. Even in anarcho-fantasies that rule by consensus there will always be a small group that refuses to negotiate, they become the ruling class in that circumstance. So do they get deported to an archipelago for refusing to come to a consensus? Don’t the deporters become the ruling class then?

Any sort of organized society outside of intimate groups needs some sort of hierarchical decision making. It’s one thing to advocate for positions to be more logically allocated, and another to be completely destroyed.

“Don’t put words in my fucking mouth”

I’m impressed that you aren’t apparently a hypocrite by holding others to a logical standard that you don’t follow. Unfortunately that logical standard is that being angry justifies spreading textual diarrhea all over Lemmy.

How do you abolish the profit motive? It’s literally just the motivation to benefit from a transaction.

“Put the ruling class in work camps”

So create another ruling class to imprison these people? Do the new ruling class have to be subject to imprisonment as well? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is now oppressing the previously wealthy? Shouldn’t they also be subject to imprisonment for abuses?

“At least that way my vote might mean something”

And it will mean more depending on how much you contribute to society.

“I’m so tired and angry all the time”

So am I. I’m so tired and angry, I have no recourse but to criticise you. Oh, that’s not a legitimate reason, you say? My mood doesn’t justify my behaviour you say?

Well, it’s as fabricated as any other logical construct. That doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.

Formally teaching pure mathematics is a bit beyond the abilities of most children or even highschoolers.

It’s like how they don’t teach inductive reasoning and proofing in statistics class, 99 percent of the people that will use it either won’t understand or care.

“It needs to have a practical application”

This is what word problems are. Describing real situations mathematically and deriving more information from them.

I feel like everyone who blames the way mathematics was taught, simply wasn’t paying attention at the time.

Pretty standard in manufacturing sector. There are so few people with the skillset and reliability to operate a factory, that they perpetually pay out overtime because they really have no other option.

You joke, because you have nothing to contribute. You’re not demoralised, this has no effect on you.

“They murder us… nothing but meat” And you are offering alternatives how? Stop pretending to be outraged when you care so little that you can’t even be bothered to investigate the causes of issues and proffer solutions.

This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.

Without looking at the numbers, gross profit is before expenditures, so it’s not like Ford has 24 billion in surplus money.

“I assume that there is some cooking of the books”

Or maybe there is stronger competition and profit margins have fallen?