In general, I oppose the death penalty. My argument against it goes broadly along the lines that our social contract is based around the system protecting each individual (thus, it cannot kill them), and that rehabilitation should always be on the table (benefits everyone).

I definitely think that people in power that abuse their power in order to commit a crime should be far more severely punished that an ordinary person committing the same crime.

Whether the above extrapolates to the point where it is justified to execute police officers that have body cam footage of themselves executing unarmed, non-threatening civilians (there are plenty such cases) is actually a question I’m a bit torn about. There are a couple videos out there (that no one should see) which show police straight up purposefully executing civilians that are either incapacitated or otherwise neutralized (lying face-down, spread eagle, unarmed). Should these warrant execution of the officer involved? I haven’t concluded for myself what I think yet.

Lord almighty… I’m truly baffled. It’s a funny story, but I’m a bit conflicted regarding whether it becomes more funny or just sad by being true…

Forgive me if I’m just unknowledgable here, but it appears from the downvotes that there might indeed exist adults as dumb as the one described. I’m honestly dumbfounded if that’s actually the case.

Is this a true story? Sounds to me like the gut may have fallen asleep or had some kind of mental short-circuit or something. I honestly can’t believe someone can survive to adulthood if they were actually just this dumb…

You’re missing a key point here: Management is a secondary function, in the sense that management doesn’t in itself produce anything of value. When done correctly, it enhances the productivity of those actually producing something.

In order to be effective at management, you need to have a good idea of what the people you are managing do. Otherwise, you won’t be able to appropriately manage resources and help people be effective by moving support to the right places. “Management” as a degree aims to teach people how to manage resources they don’t understand, and more often than not ends up producing managers that have no idea what the engineers and technicians they’re managing actually do. These managers are usually more of a burden on the people they’re managing than anything else. Every good or decent manager or leader I’ve come across has a background from the field of the people they’re managing.

Exactly “locking away without food or water” makes it sound like the time perspective we’re talking about is long enough that access to food and water are necessary within that time span.

I would say you should never lock away a kid for so long that they need access to food and water at all.

We seem to agree here: I’m by no means advocating that you should ever explicitly withhold water from a thirsty kid. I just think a lot of people here have gone over-the-top regarding how horrible it is to send a kid to their room without putting a bottle of water in there first. It’s not like feeling thirsty for a bit or getting slightly dehydrated is in any way detrimental to anyone’s health. People get thirsty and lightly dehydrated all the time, either on hiking trips or because they forgot to bring water for something that lasts a while.

The important thing, as I see it, is that you never put the kid in a situation where they honestly begin to doubt whether you care about their well-being and are going to look after them.

I agree that “people should have access to clean water”. Let’s not confuse sending a child to their room to wind down when they’re throwing a fit with torture.

No one takes harm from lack of water in a mild climate over the course of a couple hours. The reason it’s bad to lock a kid in the basement (or any other room) is that you’re taking away their freedom (which may be, to some point, justified and correct) and potentially making it harder for them to trust you. However, kids also need to learn that there are limits to how you can behave, and consequences for breaking those limits. Where the limit between “reasonable consequences for teaching children” and “trust-breaking punishment” lies is a fair discussion to have. No need to pull “locking a kid in their room is torture” into it.

OP isn’t saying trump is playing 12D chess though. They’re speculating whether some of the younger people that have been known to be planning for societal collapse for years already are using their influence over trump to help their plans for societal collapse.

Let’s get some to Europe as well! You’re welcome here :D

I don’t see how the “separate rooms” thing is positive in any way. Letting them actually sleep together is much more healthy for their relationship than forcing practically adult people to “sneak around”.

Also, if you want your kid to keep letting you know what’s going on, you shouldn’t encourage or enforce a habit of “do whatever, just keep it hidden from me and it’s fine”, which is effectively what putting them in different rooms and expecting them to sneak over is.

Why would you “endorse” or “not endorse” your 17 year old sleeping with someone? It’s none of your business, outside the fact that you should help them make good decisions. Even suggesting that two consenting 17 year olds shouldn’t sleep together without their parents “endorsement” is really weird- like, wanting to check what strangers have in their pants kind of weird.