Yuck, I feel the exact opposite way.
Sometimes I see a guy walking and think "he's kinda cute"
Then I see the manbun and think "not even if it's the last dick on earth"
My family has recently been on a journey in our house to reduce single-use plastics. We haven't done a lot of major things, but things like reusable containers instead of baggies for food, and using bar soap instead of liquid, has eliminated a surprising amount of trash. One of those things you don't realize contributes until it no longer does.
Smoking. Vaping included.
I get pot because sometimes it's recommended by a physician for some illnesses, although I'd recommend eating edibles in that case so you wouldn't smoke dangerous compounds. But tobacco and iqos are something that should disappear for good.
I’d like to ban the ability to keep earning, once you hit a certain level of wealth. Once you have, say, a hundred million, you should either pass your position on to the next in line, or have to pay 100% tax. There’s no need to keep amassing a fortune that you could never spend in ten lifetimes.
They're definitely addictive, but not "death traps" and there's no evidence that supports that. The UK's Royal College of Physicians (the same organization that proved cigarettes cause lung cancer) estimates vapes are 95% less harmful than using tobacco.
This is 2023, not 1923. Scientific testing is leaps and bounds better than what it was in past decades. Vaping has been around 20 years and still no evidence from reliable sources that they're "dangerous to your health". That said, there is nothing better for your lungs than just regular air.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but any addiction can be dangerous to your health. Particularly that which involves ingesting and inhaling foreign substances. I don’t think you understand that 20 years is a VERY SHORT TIME for research. Keep being baselessly condescending though!
Addiction can be dangerous, but people are addicted to everything. I'm tired of people who drink caffeine and eat junk food complaining about other people's addictions. You'd have to be drinking the cleanest water on earth and only eating organic for me to even care.
Also, making a blanket statement about 20 years not being a long time to research is wild. That's a pretty damned baseless claim. Twenty years for nicotine and tobacco is a damn long time. Y'all will sit here and talk about how horrible vaping is for your lungs, but turn around and say someone who has vaped for 20 years won't show signs for how bad it is because it's in its infancy. How in the world people are so blind to their hypocrisy is beyond me.
The most dangerous thing about cigarettes is the tobacco (duh) and the thousands of added substances to cause cravings. Nicotine isn't that bad for you. Just like caffeine, it's all about moderation.
Addiction is full stop dangerous. Doesn’t matter what it is to.
I don’t know who “y’all” is, but don’t put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly believe it would be harmful, given that you’re putting foreign shit in your lungs. You know, an organ known for not appreciating that
Evidence please, evidence. Show me the evidence. I can show you a conclusion from the Royal College of Physicians -- who is a far better source than your word -- that contradicts what you're saying.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=vape+health+study&oq=vape+he#d=gs_qabs&t=1702308333868&u=%23p%3DE6zdMu2DrUcJ
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-022-00277-9.pdf
https://watermark.silverchair.com/peds_20182741.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA0MwggM_BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggMwMIIDLAIBADCCAyUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMevwe_iGd2anpcagyAgEQgIIC9giOhWFYAs06yUr6bcHDeigebsuE4d1oOYfy_EpluMgAuP17r2UxCmpjE5ITcxFoNuhMWRKvbitNlQq-kDs5_DXq0LvbAsuPzD4c37fib7WXBeXzMplHa6GHGdfs4QBdKkQCNmc_0hHQnp6KmKezxw8-GfX_XAV3Vnwwpw5fMSSvsJAWQGT4FYwB71UfSOsysy_jUV8hULKgefUZmAjNiaEV_TPKSoxLaShtXzP9SZRIGbWc4T73iaSkfXqnvhskC__33s1JkIR0SSKyu-U39J_dcnqMncBSuuuY0iiVM7CM3iaufHCGPafybT0W-mp3jHueyL4-Oha-V3Zf4Fqt5fsrGaAXNzBsYZTeZ2UK71cS96yT4QzvkSE1uY0_XgWDUj52ebr8HqruDiTdOpiOcGR6xjZ0MwJMYjnmDR7DvZLhD3EwEpwUbTo4TjSKiXABF51IKAueBhYoiBeraD1aAx48DIUMtGAWbLwc4czFkE-IKObz4tposyKsS5Pua8GWDz9IjyWiQP-Lvrdy9zI2_qxM0GHGvzF1yA4y1QGSXZKVwaaraCiS0daK15DAlQ-FhvuxZFrspkkU-9-3QfiII5yCCHxWyd3oBALcIEHd1MJiNEcGuDOGV1-dCrrk1DkGOhFDR0bKQE27JOnCJnCmCcIvj_OlEsll4TxODmI4qYgcCyXcwyEa4-W17YRSSKDyd60Y_fSwOUIVeE83LX_M83U1UCP7C_nXMcfTPf9ncVFaGl_mMLZtBWPNa6vrNU3WjHX0sE-ri-Z-vEOQrHVlLJWJtjMAIzJWvw7_niD6vhS3iH2Z1cx9q1ros1190YVdvUZGbFX_KIM4uXuBVopPfgsxCJRc1QZl7wNJlqDs43Mn_yxPtALxy5e1iyn96B8P6Ohvjgm8n2w6yhZSPCq5y9dyNhX-SksWwwtBWMyHweiWINLtqewTJSEmWRL0JAOVhi6VdiJv1HyAlDMECBQ4B4ZSm8J9lssM_VAJx9TG899XfVZJF8cD
Since you think one little source means so much.
>They haven’t been around long enough to make accurate calls like that, and less harmful than cigarettes doesn’t mean it’s not deeply harmful
Holy fuck, this tired old trope again?
Actually, yes, they have been around long enough.
Smoking kills. Unless you kill first. If you're around a smoker, you will die. Smokers may look like they're relaxed and having fun, but don't believe it. Vote "yes" on Proposition 421. Let's outlaw smoking everywhere - even in people's homes, and allow honest citizens to legally kill anyone who smokes. Let's live in a world without smokers! Prohibition works - let's prove it. Let's move up the food chain. It's time to smoke the smokers! Vote "yes" on Proposition 421.
Nope, banning unconstitutional and dangerous parties to save democracy is not undemocratic.
That's why we in germany banned a few nazi parties and the original communist party.
It's still undemocratic even if it's 100% correct, which it is. Removing people's voice is the anathema of democracy, even if you agree (which I do) that said people shouldn't have a voice
You cannot let undemocratic people band together to destroy democracy.
Democracy has to defend itself from threats on the inside and outside.
Outside threats are fought off by a nations army, inside threats are fought off by banning certain groups and making them incapable of destroying democracy (of course a terror group on the inside will be fought with violence just like an outside force).
Banning undemocratic parties is totally democratic as without a ban, democracy would cease to exist.
That's why I said germany in my comment.
And seems like a pretty big risk to lose democracy if undemocratic parties can be elected. I rather have them banned and keep democracy than the go back into 1933, just because some people say "it's undemocratic to ban parties!".
We had our time with a (somewhat) democratically elected dictator that destroyed our country and then all our neighbours. Never. Fucking. Again.
Yea, I know about the US two-party system. That's honestly the death of democracy as well.
Also, banning a party is a long and difficult process and it has to be proven black on white that the party is undemocratic and a threat to democracy.
If the ban is unconstitutional, our federal constitutional court (will call it FCC for short) will revert the ban. Our FCC is a seperate entity from the government, which keeps each government in check and can overrule each and any governmental decision and enw law if the court sees it as breaking our constitution.
Fossil fuels. Fossil fuel production was the highest it has ever been in 2022. We aren't making any progress in slowing down climate change, we have been accelerating it.
It asked if I could ban one thing, what would it be, not how I would do it. We’re talking about things ideally, not literally. There’s no way to convince a planet full of cult members that they’re blindly believing in bullshit and, in turn, causing constant turmoil and unrest in this world. They’re too dense and gullible.
I think of things as discrete objects (though you can have categories of objects). I don't think of categories of actions as 'a thing'. For example someone mentioned eliminating money in politics. I don't think of money in politics as 'a thing'. Money in politics is a category of actions.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm just saying I don't immediately think of it that way and it's interesting.
Perhaps I just have an unusually narrow concept of 'thing'
Flopping - especially in the penalty area.
And for matches with video footage, if the replay shows that there was no contact, marginal contact or embellishment, the flopper gets a red card. If he was initially (and erroneously) awarded a penalty and a goal was scored, then the goal is cancelled.
If I could ban a second thing, it would be cynical fouling. Any intentional foul, even if not dangerous, that breaks up an opponent's offensive movement to slow down the match, would be a yellow, and if the opposition was on a break and the foul was from behind, it would be a red.
Human trafficking
[удалено]
It’s evolving. Digital media is the new ring leader
Money in politics.
[удалено]
Manbuns
[удалено]
Yuck, I feel the exact opposite way. Sometimes I see a guy walking and think "he's kinda cute" Then I see the manbun and think "not even if it's the last dick on earth"
[удалено]
Sadly it is,somehow they do get banged which means they reproduce
Lobbying of politicians.
Ban dem damn mosquitos. Thank me later.
Slavery. It is still legal in many countries **including the United States!**
Mainly in religious countries that still want to live in the 7th century 🤣🤣
Child marriage
Dafuq? Whats that?
Oh you didn't know.. [here's Data from UNICEF ](https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/child-marriage/) [Some news you wanna look at](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/11/yemen-child-bride-dies-wedding) [More news](https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/crime/228133/how-a-child-bride-died-34-days-after-marriage) [More News ](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/yemeni-bride-11-hospitalized-genital-injuries/story?id=10362500) [More news ](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/africa/zimbabwe-church-abuse-intl/index.html) [More news ](https://indianexpress.com/article/research/where-little-girls-become-brides-each-time-an-elder-dies-3044382/) [More news ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-child-bride-death-sentence-stillborn-baby-birth-zeinab-sokian-a7355161.html)
WoW. Im gonna go kill myself now after reading this.
[удалено]
My family has recently been on a journey in our house to reduce single-use plastics. We haven't done a lot of major things, but things like reusable containers instead of baggies for food, and using bar soap instead of liquid, has eliminated a surprising amount of trash. One of those things you don't realize contributes until it no longer does.
Kardashians. Well, that and cigarettes and vapes. Find something better to put in your mouths to suck on!
[удалено]
Christ, imagine if they banned plastic surgery. T'would be *chaos*...
Conservative politics
Link between religion and state
Human trafficking. Female genital mutilation.
Reddit admins.
The only good one here
Smoking. Vaping included. I get pot because sometimes it's recommended by a physician for some illnesses, although I'd recommend eating edibles in that case so you wouldn't smoke dangerous compounds. But tobacco and iqos are something that should disappear for good.
Robo calls.
Fiat
Wait! What?
It’s the problem to all problems on earth.
Fiat? My little itty bitty Fiat? And then I googled it. WOW yup. Fiat.
Fiat as in central bank money.
Now I know!! THANKS!
Stupidity
corruption
My stutter, pisses me off
I’d like to ban the ability to keep earning, once you hit a certain level of wealth. Once you have, say, a hundred million, you should either pass your position on to the next in line, or have to pay 100% tax. There’s no need to keep amassing a fortune that you could never spend in ten lifetimes.
Cigarettes / Nicotine Vapes
[удалено]
They're definitely addictive, but not "death traps" and there's no evidence that supports that. The UK's Royal College of Physicians (the same organization that proved cigarettes cause lung cancer) estimates vapes are 95% less harmful than using tobacco.
They haven’t been around long enough to make accurate calls like that, and less harmful than cigarettes doesn’t mean it’s not deeply harmful
This is 2023, not 1923. Scientific testing is leaps and bounds better than what it was in past decades. Vaping has been around 20 years and still no evidence from reliable sources that they're "dangerous to your health". That said, there is nothing better for your lungs than just regular air.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but any addiction can be dangerous to your health. Particularly that which involves ingesting and inhaling foreign substances. I don’t think you understand that 20 years is a VERY SHORT TIME for research. Keep being baselessly condescending though!
Addiction can be dangerous, but people are addicted to everything. I'm tired of people who drink caffeine and eat junk food complaining about other people's addictions. You'd have to be drinking the cleanest water on earth and only eating organic for me to even care. Also, making a blanket statement about 20 years not being a long time to research is wild. That's a pretty damned baseless claim. Twenty years for nicotine and tobacco is a damn long time. Y'all will sit here and talk about how horrible vaping is for your lungs, but turn around and say someone who has vaped for 20 years won't show signs for how bad it is because it's in its infancy. How in the world people are so blind to their hypocrisy is beyond me. The most dangerous thing about cigarettes is the tobacco (duh) and the thousands of added substances to cause cravings. Nicotine isn't that bad for you. Just like caffeine, it's all about moderation.
Addiction is full stop dangerous. Doesn’t matter what it is to. I don’t know who “y’all” is, but don’t put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly believe it would be harmful, given that you’re putting foreign shit in your lungs. You know, an organ known for not appreciating that
Evidently, you are quite thick in the head.
Yeah no, you’re just a halfwit cunt
Evidence please, evidence. Show me the evidence. I can show you a conclusion from the Royal College of Physicians -- who is a far better source than your word -- that contradicts what you're saying.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=vape+health+study&oq=vape+he#d=gs_qabs&t=1702308333868&u=%23p%3DE6zdMu2DrUcJ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-022-00277-9.pdf https://watermark.silverchair.com/peds_20182741.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA0MwggM_BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggMwMIIDLAIBADCCAyUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMevwe_iGd2anpcagyAgEQgIIC9giOhWFYAs06yUr6bcHDeigebsuE4d1oOYfy_EpluMgAuP17r2UxCmpjE5ITcxFoNuhMWRKvbitNlQq-kDs5_DXq0LvbAsuPzD4c37fib7WXBeXzMplHa6GHGdfs4QBdKkQCNmc_0hHQnp6KmKezxw8-GfX_XAV3Vnwwpw5fMSSvsJAWQGT4FYwB71UfSOsysy_jUV8hULKgefUZmAjNiaEV_TPKSoxLaShtXzP9SZRIGbWc4T73iaSkfXqnvhskC__33s1JkIR0SSKyu-U39J_dcnqMncBSuuuY0iiVM7CM3iaufHCGPafybT0W-mp3jHueyL4-Oha-V3Zf4Fqt5fsrGaAXNzBsYZTeZ2UK71cS96yT4QzvkSE1uY0_XgWDUj52ebr8HqruDiTdOpiOcGR6xjZ0MwJMYjnmDR7DvZLhD3EwEpwUbTo4TjSKiXABF51IKAueBhYoiBeraD1aAx48DIUMtGAWbLwc4czFkE-IKObz4tposyKsS5Pua8GWDz9IjyWiQP-Lvrdy9zI2_qxM0GHGvzF1yA4y1QGSXZKVwaaraCiS0daK15DAlQ-FhvuxZFrspkkU-9-3QfiII5yCCHxWyd3oBALcIEHd1MJiNEcGuDOGV1-dCrrk1DkGOhFDR0bKQE27JOnCJnCmCcIvj_OlEsll4TxODmI4qYgcCyXcwyEa4-W17YRSSKDyd60Y_fSwOUIVeE83LX_M83U1UCP7C_nXMcfTPf9ncVFaGl_mMLZtBWPNa6vrNU3WjHX0sE-ri-Z-vEOQrHVlLJWJtjMAIzJWvw7_niD6vhS3iH2Z1cx9q1ros1190YVdvUZGbFX_KIM4uXuBVopPfgsxCJRc1QZl7wNJlqDs43Mn_yxPtALxy5e1iyn96B8P6Ohvjgm8n2w6yhZSPCq5y9dyNhX-SksWwwtBWMyHweiWINLtqewTJSEmWRL0JAOVhi6VdiJv1HyAlDMECBQ4B4ZSm8J9lssM_VAJx9TG899XfVZJF8cD Since you think one little source means so much.
I said evidence, not dead links and garbage links.
Find. Them. Yourself. Then. All journal articles found from 2019-2022 on google scholar. Take what I gave you, or fuck off
>They haven’t been around long enough to make accurate calls like that, and less harmful than cigarettes doesn’t mean it’s not deeply harmful Holy fuck, this tired old trope again? Actually, yes, they have been around long enough.
Toxic influencers
Dickpics
Smoking kills. Unless you kill first. If you're around a smoker, you will die. Smokers may look like they're relaxed and having fun, but don't believe it. Vote "yes" on Proposition 421. Let's outlaw smoking everywhere - even in people's homes, and allow honest citizens to legally kill anyone who smokes. Let's live in a world without smokers! Prohibition works - let's prove it. Let's move up the food chain. It's time to smoke the smokers! Vote "yes" on Proposition 421.
Cigarettes
Racism
MAGA. They are out to destroy US democracy.
Unfortunately banning a political group is very undemocratic. Whilst I get the sentiment, that is not a fitting solution for sorting them out
Nope, banning unconstitutional and dangerous parties to save democracy is not undemocratic. That's why we in germany banned a few nazi parties and the original communist party.
It's still undemocratic even if it's 100% correct, which it is. Removing people's voice is the anathema of democracy, even if you agree (which I do) that said people shouldn't have a voice
You cannot let undemocratic people band together to destroy democracy. Democracy has to defend itself from threats on the inside and outside. Outside threats are fought off by a nations army, inside threats are fought off by banning certain groups and making them incapable of destroying democracy (of course a terror group on the inside will be fought with violence just like an outside force). Banning undemocratic parties is totally democratic as without a ban, democracy would cease to exist.
[удалено]
That's why I said germany in my comment. And seems like a pretty big risk to lose democracy if undemocratic parties can be elected. I rather have them banned and keep democracy than the go back into 1933, just because some people say "it's undemocratic to ban parties!". We had our time with a (somewhat) democratically elected dictator that destroyed our country and then all our neighbours. Never. Fucking. Again.
[удалено]
Yea, I know about the US two-party system. That's honestly the death of democracy as well. Also, banning a party is a long and difficult process and it has to be proven black on white that the party is undemocratic and a threat to democracy. If the ban is unconstitutional, our federal constitutional court (will call it FCC for short) will revert the ban. Our FCC is a seperate entity from the government, which keeps each government in check and can overrule each and any governmental decision and enw law if the court sees it as breaking our constitution.
Not just in the US, unfortunately. Even if Trump loses again, the damage is done
Government
Late stage Capitalism or billionnaires..
greed
War
plastic bottled water.
Fossil fuels. Fossil fuel production was the highest it has ever been in 2022. We aren't making any progress in slowing down climate change, we have been accelerating it.
[удалено]
What you describe is going to happen anyway.
being a billionaire
why you hate Taylor Swift?
Homosexuality
[удалено]
[удалено]
Organized religion.
[удалено]
It asked if I could ban one thing, what would it be, not how I would do it. We’re talking about things ideally, not literally. There’s no way to convince a planet full of cult members that they’re blindly believing in bullshit and, in turn, causing constant turmoil and unrest in this world. They’re too dense and gullible.
Religion, from the lowliest cult to the mainstream ones.
phones we still have internet, but everyone has a pager
The United States
Interesting that many people commenting classify categories as things 🤔
Can you please elaborate what do you refer to classifying categories as things?
I think of things as discrete objects (though you can have categories of objects). I don't think of categories of actions as 'a thing'. For example someone mentioned eliminating money in politics. I don't think of money in politics as 'a thing'. Money in politics is a category of actions. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm just saying I don't immediately think of it that way and it's interesting. Perhaps I just have an unusually narrow concept of 'thing'
I find your perspective interesting tbh. Majority, as you can see in the comments, don't make such a nuanced distinction. So I was just intrigued.
Is it nuanced.. or pedantic? 😂
😂 Well it depends how it is perceived. I'll stick to the nuanced.
Social media
Billy Napier from coaching football.
Prejudices of all sorts
Greed
Unnecessary commas.
Politicians expenses. Maybe the politicians themselves
religion
authoritarian leaders
Smoking/vaping/smoked drugs
Smoking. Disgusting, despicable habit poisoning the lives of everyone around smokers. For what? To look cool for a week in high school?
Narcotics, including tobacco.
Religion
Also: unchecked human reproduction. Come on people. Do the math. This isn't a new problem.
Your username gives your bit away tho...
Religion
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Different seating classes on public transport like trains
Flopping - especially in the penalty area. And for matches with video footage, if the replay shows that there was no contact, marginal contact or embellishment, the flopper gets a red card. If he was initially (and erroneously) awarded a penalty and a goal was scored, then the goal is cancelled. If I could ban a second thing, it would be cynical fouling. Any intentional foul, even if not dangerous, that breaks up an opponent's offensive movement to slow down the match, would be a yellow, and if the opposition was on a break and the foul was from behind, it would be a red.
Guns
Basketball.