|
Post by oliviabenson(Taylor's Version) on Dec 28, 2023 15:26:24 GMT -5
I don't know if this will become a debate, but in case it does, I post it in here.
How is it in your countries? Is it allowed for everyone to buy fireworks for New Year's Eve? I mean not only the colorful rockets that you shoot into the sky, I especially mean the small ones that just explode with a loud bang. The things you throw. Because over here in Germany, every year they are discussing to forbid to sell fireworks, but never do. Reason for it is, that from year to year, there are more idiots who throw them at people, into houses, or big groups throw them at the firefighters, medics and police officers. Especially Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne shows us scenes from that night every year, that look like in a war zone. And that's one of many reasons (environmental and climatic stuff too), why I'm also saying since many years (long before they discussed it) that they should ban that stuff. This morning one itiot tried to put a burning one into the pocket of my grandpa, he luckily noticed it and with a reflex hit that guy, so that he felt to the ground, and the firework thing couldn't do any damage. So many people get injured by that stuff, many people loose fingers or get nasty burnings. They should ban them and just do official firework shows in the bigger cities.
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on Dec 29, 2023 3:10:00 GMT -5
I don't know if this will become a debate, but in case it does, I post it in here. How is it in your countries? Is it allowed for everyone to buy fireworks for New Year's Eve? I mean not only the colorful rockets that you shoot into the sky, I especially mean the small ones that just explode with a loud bang. The things you throw. Because over here in Germany, every year they are discussing to forbid to sell fireworks, but never do. Reason for it is, that from year to year, there are more idiots who throw them at people, into houses, or big groups throw them at the firefighters, medics and police officers. Especially Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne shows us scenes from that night every year, that look like in a war zone. And that's one of many reasons (environmental and climatic stuff too), why I'm also saying since many years (long before they discussed it) that they should ban that stuff. This morning one itiot tried to put a burning one into the pocket of my grandpa, he luckily noticed it and with a reflex hit that guy, so that he felt to the ground, and the firework thing couldn't do any damage. So many people get injured by that stuff, many people loose fingers or get nasty burnings. They should ban them and just do official firework shows in the bigger cities. Yeah. It’s always been an issue. But it has become worse over the years since fireworks have become more dangerous. People buy illegal stuff that is almost as dangerous as explosives. In my opinion they should ban fireworks for private people. Cities should take care of the fireworks. That way it’s safe and everyone can watch a beautiful show. We do that with our Queen’s/King’s birthday, so why not for New Year’s too.
|
|
|
Post by oliviabenson(Taylor's Version) on Dec 29, 2023 5:57:20 GMT -5
I don't know if this will become a debate, but in case it does, I post it in here. How is it in your countries? Is it allowed for everyone to buy fireworks for New Year's Eve? I mean not only the colorful rockets that you shoot into the sky, I especially mean the small ones that just explode with a loud bang. The things you throw. Because over here in Germany, every year they are discussing to forbid to sell fireworks, but never do. Reason for it is, that from year to year, there are more idiots who throw them at people, into houses, or big groups throw them at the firefighters, medics and police officers. Especially Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne shows us scenes from that night every year, that look like in a war zone. And that's one of many reasons (environmental and climatic stuff too), why I'm also saying since many years (long before they discussed it) that they should ban that stuff. This morning one itiot tried to put a burning one into the pocket of my grandpa, he luckily noticed it and with a reflex hit that guy, so that he felt to the ground, and the firework thing couldn't do any damage. So many people get injured by that stuff, many people loose fingers or get nasty burnings. They should ban them and just do official firework shows in the bigger cities. Yeah. It’s always been an issue. But it has become worse over the years since fireworks have become more dangerous. People buy illegal stuff that is almost as dangerous as explosives. In my opinion they should ban fireworks for private people. Cities should take care of the fireworks. That way it’s safe and everyone can watch a beautiful show. We do that with our Queen’s/King’s birthday, so why not for New Year’s too. Exactly how I'm thinking about it. But I think they should ban them for the whole year. Because at every small occasion they are throwing those fireworks. Halloween you can hear and see almost exactly the same amount of explosions of fireworks than around New Year's Eve. Even on christmas some people use them. And on other holidays too.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on Feb 13, 2024 12:37:31 GMT -5
I just had a debate with my boyfriend the other day that I thought was interesting. Wouldn't the world be a much better place if every child was intentionally born? I think all young men should be required to freeze sperm and get a vasectomy.
Think about it if you actually intentionally plan on having a kid you would obviously choose to do so when you are in a good position financially. Now of course situations can change after the baby is born but there still should be a decrease in child poverty. There would probably be less poverty crimes. Also, the whole abortion debate would completely end and women wouldn't feel the need to deal with side effects of birth control.
|
|
|
Post by oliviabenson(Taylor's Version) on Feb 13, 2024 14:42:41 GMT -5
There is something that is very true in what you wrote. Also the overpopulation of the world wouldn't be such a big thing anymore. It surely won't solve everything, but it would probably be better for the kids and the parents.
And I don't get the whole abortion thing. Because I think everyone should decide for themselves. We don't need a Donald Trumpet like guy or woman who tells others what they have to do with their own life, just because they have a very old and traditional view on things, or believe in things. If they believe so, then they are free to decide for themselves to not abort a pregnancy under any circumstances, but please let other people decide for themselves too.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on Feb 13, 2024 16:06:10 GMT -5
Oh I just thought about another point. The babies will probably be born healthier too. When men have children at older ages it increases the chances of certain disorders.
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on Feb 14, 2024 7:18:59 GMT -5
I’ve got questions: - at what age should men/boys get this done (if you want to avoid teen pregnancies or teenage boys impregnating women, it might be very young) - are women only allowed to get sperm from a guy they’re married to or in a stable relationship with? - what are the criteria for (financially) stable before you are allowed to have kids? Wouldn’t that also exclude poor people from reproducing? - you talked about older men causing less healthier babies. What about women? Women’s age is even more vital to the health of the baby. Are you gonna set a maximum age? Are you going to exclude all people with diseases or disorders that can be inhereted?
|
|
|
Post by oliviabenson(Taylor's Version) on Feb 14, 2024 15:50:44 GMT -5
I’ve got questions: - at what age should men/boys get this done (if you want to avoid teen pregnancies or teenage boys impregnating women, it might be very young) - are women only allowed to get sperm from a guy they’re married to or in a stable relationship with? - what are the criteria for (financially) stable before you are allowed to have kids? Wouldn’t that also exclude poor people from reproducing? - you talked about older men causing less healthier babies. What about women? Women’s age is even more vital to the health of the baby. Are you gonna set a maximum age? Are you going to exclude all people with diseases or disorders that can be inhereted? - I don't know, I guess it would be somewhere between 18 and 40 (or 21 and 40 in the US). I don't really know about the medical stuff. - Should be the decision of the people themselves. - I think there shouldn't be official criteria, but people should think about the situation and if they can afford a child. (something that people should think about anyways, if they want to get one) - That was a question I also had on my mind. That's what I was thinking about those things.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on Feb 14, 2024 16:35:45 GMT -5
I’ve got questions: - at what age should men/boys get this done (if you want to avoid teen pregnancies or teenage boys impregnating women, it might be very young) - are women only allowed to get sperm from a guy they’re married to or in a stable relationship with? - what are the criteria for (financially) stable before you are allowed to have kids? Wouldn’t that also exclude poor people from reproducing? - you talked about older men causing less healthier babies. What about women? Women’s age is even more vital to the health of the baby. Are you gonna set a maximum age? Are you going to exclude all people with diseases or disorders that can be inhereted? The boys would get it done as soon as puberty hits for them. As far as criteria, pretty much what OliviaBenson said. I wouldn't want to live under a total dictatorship. People will make the best decisions for themselves regarding finances and relationships. I would think most people wouldn't choose for their child to grow up in poverty or single parent homes. The sole goal of this would be to eliminate accidental pregnancies permanently not to discriminate. Yeah that's true the woman's age does play a part in the baby's health as well. When women get older they have trouble conceiving. Our bodies have a built in mechanism to prevent us from having children at older ages. Men have a built in mechanism too, but thanks to science (pills) you can reproduce at age 90 further increasing risks of diseases/disorders. Sure some women will successfully be pregnant at like 45 and put their baby at risk though, but I wouldn't want to set a max age as that is up to the people involved. This is a balancing act between minimizing risks as much as possible without being too controlling. And no I wouldn't exclude people with diseases/disorders. That would be like eugenics. If people with diseases want to reproduce they should be able to make that decision and weigh the chances of their offspring inheriting it themselves. If they don't want to reproduce they would never find themselves in a situation where they accidentally did and feel trapped.
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on Feb 16, 2024 2:42:37 GMT -5
I’ve got questions: - at what age should men/boys get this done (if you want to avoid teen pregnancies or teenage boys impregnating women, it might be very young) - are women only allowed to get sperm from a guy they’re married to or in a stable relationship with? - what are the criteria for (financially) stable before you are allowed to have kids? Wouldn’t that also exclude poor people from reproducing? - you talked about older men causing less healthier babies. What about women? Women’s age is even more vital to the health of the baby. Are you gonna set a maximum age? Are you going to exclude all people with diseases or disorders that can be inhereted? The boys would get it done as soon as puberty hits for them. As far as criteria, pretty much what OliviaBenson said. I wouldn't want to live under a total dictatorship. People will make the best decisions for themselves regarding finances and relationships. I would think most people wouldn't choose for their child to grow up in poverty or single parent homes. The sole goal of this would be to eliminate accidental pregnancies permanently not to discriminate. Yeah that's true the woman's age does play a part in the baby's health as well. When women get older they have trouble conceiving. Our bodies have a built in mechanism to prevent us from having children at older ages. Men have a built in mechanism too, but thanks to science (pills) you can reproduce at age 90 further increasing risks of diseases/disorders. Sure some women will successfully be pregnant at like 45 and put their baby at risk though, but I wouldn't want to set a max age as that is up to the people involved. This is a balancing act between minimizing risks as much as possible without being too controlling. And no I wouldn't exclude people with diseases/disorders. That would be like eugenics. If people with diseases want to reproduce they should be able to make that decision and weigh the chances of their offspring inheriting it themselves. If they don't want to reproduce they would never find themselves in a situation where they accidentally did and feel trapped. I’m all for limiting or even preventing accidental pregnancies. The biggest risk of this is that it becomes a bit of a sperm bank model. That could backfire a lot. Kids could become more like something you buy instead of the product of a stable relationship. You already see that in women when they get older and realize they want kids. There’s a big risk of doing it without a stable relationship. Sometimes they even think they can do it on their own.
|
|
|
Post by oliviabenson(Taylor's Version) on Feb 16, 2024 15:43:15 GMT -5
The boys would get it done as soon as puberty hits for them. As far as criteria, pretty much what OliviaBenson said. I wouldn't want to live under a total dictatorship. People will make the best decisions for themselves regarding finances and relationships. I would think most people wouldn't choose for their child to grow up in poverty or single parent homes. The sole goal of this would be to eliminate accidental pregnancies permanently not to discriminate. Yeah that's true the woman's age does play a part in the baby's health as well. When women get older they have trouble conceiving. Our bodies have a built in mechanism to prevent us from having children at older ages. Men have a built in mechanism too, but thanks to science (pills) you can reproduce at age 90 further increasing risks of diseases/disorders. Sure some women will successfully be pregnant at like 45 and put their baby at risk though, but I wouldn't want to set a max age as that is up to the people involved. This is a balancing act between minimizing risks as much as possible without being too controlling. And no I wouldn't exclude people with diseases/disorders. That would be like eugenics. If people with diseases want to reproduce they should be able to make that decision and weigh the chances of their offspring inheriting it themselves. If they don't want to reproduce they would never find themselves in a situation where they accidentally did and feel trapped. I’m all for limiting or even preventing accidental pregnancies. The biggest risk of this is that it becomes a bit of a sperm bank model. That could backfire a lot. Kids could become more like something you buy instead of the product of a stable relationship. You already see that in women when they get older and realize they want kids. There’s a big risk of doing it without a stable relationship. Sometimes they even think they can do it on their own. Some can do it on their own. I also never had a father. But I also don't like it if people get a child when they are too old, because when the kids turn 18 and your parents are already 70 or older, that's not nice. They want to run and jump around sometimes with their parents when they are young, so if the kids are 5 or 6 years old and the parents are already about 60, that's not very fun or good for the kids. And who knows if they don't die with 70 years.
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on Feb 17, 2024 2:38:03 GMT -5
I’m all for limiting or even preventing accidental pregnancies. The biggest risk of this is that it becomes a bit of a sperm bank model. That could backfire a lot. Kids could become more like something you buy instead of the product of a stable relationship. You already see that in women when they get older and realize they want kids. There’s a big risk of doing it without a stable relationship. Sometimes they even think they can do it on their own. Some can do it on their own. I also never had a father. But I also don't like it if people get a child when they are too old, because when the kids turn 18 and your parents are already 70 or older, that's not nice. They want to run and jump around sometimes with their parents when they are young, so if the kids are 5 or 6 years old and the parents are already about 60, that's not very fun or good for the kids. And who knows if they don't die with 70 years. No disrespect to single moms or dads. Things happen. But it shouldn’t be intentional to try having and raising a child alone. Same goes for the situation that both parents are deeply involved in a career and don’t want to give that up. Don’t have kids if you want that.
|
|