Sure, but I think people take it as not caring for their child. It would be like telling a parent that they are purposefully poisoning their child by vaccinating them. It may very well be true, but most people will stop listening as soon as it’s framed that way.

I think it’s important to realize that tons of people, all of us included, in some way will do things incorrectly, or even bad things, specifically because we think it’s the *right* thing to do for those we love. It’s just a an unfortunate reality of being human.

I will say that I don’t mean to judge or make a claim about anyone here. I have zero doubt that everyone here loves their kids more than anything. But I think a lot of parents who don’t care the slightest about their kids (and thus don’t spank them) are equated as consequence OF not spanking, which is irrelevant to the situation. Kids who have uninvolved, uncaring parents are just generally pieces of shit as adults. They aren’t the same.

You can love your kids more than anything and spank them, and you can despise your kids or completely ignore them and not spank them. The loved kid will absolutely turn out better. But that doesn’t mean spanking/hitting is a crucial form of punishment to teach children a lesson. I am arguing that it teaches them to behave because of fear of someone else, rather than for the benefit it’s to them and the cost it is to innocent people when they are awful.

Thus, in the former situation, they are more likely to be awful again when the big scary person isn’t around.

I am not being pedantic, you said spanking was not hitting because you have a negative connotation with the word hitting but not with spanking. Essentially rather than arguing the truth of the situation you want to argue so it *sounds* like the situation that you *feel* that it is. What you should be doing is explain exactly the situations and logic in which hitting children is justified if you think those situations exist. What you seem to have been doing above is attempting to justify it not by actually standing by your actions, but by excusing them when there are “too any kids” and then saying it’s a “special form of hitting that isn’t really hitting.” Both of which actually concede the argument and try to create special case exceptions, rather than being direct about what is happening and being ok with it. If you are fine with what is happening, why does having one kid make it different, and why are you trying to literally use word choice to defend it rather than a strong argument.

In other words, if it’s truly justified and makes sense, you don’t have to sugar coat the wording. Just defend why it’s acceptable and necessary to hit children in certain situations to ensure they aren’t little assholes if that is your stance.

There is no "push" on the internet, everything is "pull".

nostr:naddr1qqyrsctxxpjnqdpnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c4p5dms

Its not a worry, its an observation.

I suppose it was always inevitable that governments, big business, and small remnant would own all the coins.

If we need total economic collapse in order to reach a 5-10 trillion dollar market cap, we deserve to lose.

For reasons I do not understand, most people could care less about bitcoin.

The only reason we are sustaining a 1 trillion market cap is because of the US ETFs and microstrategy.

The plebs could only maintain a 600-700 billion market cap. Its sad AF and borderline depressing.

The plebs don't deserve bitcoin. It took wallstreet to pump the price.

Pls do.

I’m not much of a chart nerd, but historically after the halving has taken place there’s around a year of uptrend that follows.

When i tried to google design books around this concept all i found were books and how to keep users addicted. Let’s not care about peoples well being, let’s just get them hooked 🙄

Is moving my stable nuts from one mint to another a taxable event?

Imagine being this close to learning something.