Blake

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly? There isn't really one. I think the best you can do is expose yourself to various sources and apply a very, very, very high dose of skepticism to everything you read.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure you can, it’s just the median of the range rather than the median person. For what it’s worth, I did look at age distribution statistics and there is some disparity but it’s minimal, which is why I wrote 40% instead of 44%.

Anyways, this is getting much too pedantic, obviously I’m not writing a scientific analysis, it’s just an internet comment, it doesn’t need to be perfect.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (13 children)

The BBC hasn’t been impartial for at least 20 years. Not only that, but they’re the most transphobic publicly funded institution in the UK.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Millennials: we’re all adults now, we want to be taken seriously!

Time: passes

Millennials: never mind we’ve made a mistake let’s go back

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The US census used 1997 - 2013 as the range. Which gives us an age range of 10-26, making the median age 18 - and I was thinking of 21 as adult, rather than 18 - which is why I said “they’re teenagers or younger” - but yes, you’re right, “only” 40%-ish of gen Z are under 18 :p

Run the same survey again in 11 years and compare 21+ gen Z to 2023’s boomers and I bet the results aren’t even close.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

Stupid article, most of Gen Z aren’t even 21 yet, of course they’re gonna fall for scams, they’re teenagers or younger lol. I got scammed loads of times on RuneScape as a kid, and that taught me better than anything else how to avoid scams.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

“Semi-closed outdoor area” is not considered to be outdoors by UK law. I’m not arguing semantics with you. You are interpreting everything I say in the weakest possible way. I’m not doing that to you, so I just feel like you’re really being quite unfair. Are you trying to understand my position, or are you just trying to win some internet argument?

I haven’t seen any good proof of the levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke being harmful to anyone. Please feel free to provide a source if you want to make that claim.

Are you seriously not seeing a difference between kids playing on a go-kart at 6am and someone listening to extremely loud music at 3am and refusing to turn it down when asked?

I’m getting really tired very quickly of your aggressive manner, please dial it back or I’ll just block you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have awful impulse control (severe ADHD) but usually I just eat an entire packet of Oreos instead of exploiting people for selfish reasons.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned. I was giving examples of things which we tolerate in society - including kids being noisy while playing. I wasn’t writing a proposal for a new law, you’re holding my friendly, conversational, informal comment to a ridiculous standard.

I absolutely think there’s a case to be made for restricting smoking in places where it does harm. But I once again remind you, the comment I was replying to, was saying that tobacco should be banned outright because the OP didn’t like the smell. That was what I wrote my response to. The “health effects” stuff was post-hoc justification for their bigotry. I’m not interested in arguing the toss with you, I’ve shared my opinion, if you don’t like it, I don’t give a shit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It’s nothing to do with “me”, it’s more to do with reality. There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues. Likewise, yes, air pollution also does. But we’re not talking about coal power plants here, we’re talking about people smoking cigarettes. There’s tons of evidence which shows that they are essentially harmless to others if smoked outdoors. That’s why preventing people from getting sleep matters, but smoking outdoors does not.

I’m not going to engage with the other thing you wrote, except to say that OP said that smoking should be banned with no additional qualifiers, in my view, everything else they wrote was explaining why they felt that way. I’m not going to argue that point though, because it’s not relevant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can’t decide that the air pollution isn’t?

My position is pretty simple: we should prioritise personal freedoms over personal preferences, as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.

Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere? No. Yet they want to ban it. They said that there should be a ban on all kinds of smoking. Total authoritarian nonsense.

The car thing, there’s a reason I completely ignored that part of the comment, it is totally irrelevant to anything I wrote and I’m not going to engage with it, sorry.

view more: ‹ prev next ›