• 0 Posts
  • 54 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月5日

help-circle






  • I can definitively agree on the explanation stated infering the second point. However, it is an aspect which needs further clarification, like op said: “someone else’s skin” is usualy interpreted as human directed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/someone). This essentially introduces double meaning within the argument.

    In terms of vegetable tanning your best knowledge is correct, it costs more as it requires substantially more time thats why it is only used for higher end or artisan leather. Additionally, I have stated synthetic tanning which is comparable to vegetable, but not as bad as chromium.

    & the original person’s comment about chromium-salts looks spot-on, & was ignored by your counter.

    In regards to that, can you provide relevant information which details it?


  • While the conclusion of this argument is valid your premises don’t follow a logical sequence. Firstly, leather is defined as a material obtained from rawhide which is tanned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather) - this is real leather, there is no need for calls to ignorance here.

    Secondly, what do mean by referring to “someone else’s”? Because the common usage for such statements usually mean human, not non-human animals. This essentially looks like an emotional appeal at this point.

    Thirdly, you state that it is common for leather to be coated in plastic. While this is technically correct - as large portion of the market is composed of reusing scraps, it dismisses leather production from virgin rawhide and processes using vegetable or synthetic tanning which don’t need plastic for the resultant product.



  • I agree, social media is harmful for all, no matter the age. We shouldn’t be destined to further segment and disfranchise individuals solely because they’re “inferior”, based on age or any other discriminatory factor - the thing is, who is the victim and who is the abuser in this case? Because the situation at hand seems like the victims are getting punished for the wrongdoings of the abuser.

    This is where we are at, the corporations flipped the script, and we as a society gulped it all down, tightening the handcuffs around the wrong hands.

    But besides the point, relating to the logic within your statement, who are you trying to ban here? Because you mention both “everyone” and “them” - which consequently makes it ambiguous, which introduces double meaning.






  • Please stop trying to justify fascist laws. Ageism is still discrimination. And like people, without prior experience it is quite logical they will be susceptible. This of course applies to anyone any age.

    The only problem here is the predatory system that is designed to exploit people. The victims are not the predators so justifying how their rights should be stripped based on an arbitrary number makes this whole argument insignificant.

    Like other types of discrimination: racism, sexism, there are other ways than to introduce more social segmentation which always leads to fascism.


  • Actual studies say

    The general consensus is the studies say that usage of devices impacts everyone. Let’s not cherry pick a particular minority here, just to explain that stripping their already insignificant rights is a good thing. In addition teenagers, which are not children, are dismissed here. According to studies they are more similar to adults in therms of decision making capabilities - dismissing that is ageism.

    I think no phones until 18 would be doable

    This is essentially the same speak as the laws trying to ban privacy for all. First of all where is the consent? Also, what is the sense of punishing the minority for being who they are, stripping their rights, if the perpetrators are still unharmed? In essence, phone and laptop usage wouldn’t be so bad for anyone (not just kids or teenagers), if we focused on the actual problems not turn to discrimination.