I've been driving a 1996 VW diesel van in Germany including Munich, and nowhere anyone ever actually cared about the lack of the sticker. And now, at 30 years of age, it turned "oldtimer", so it is officially exempted.
I would think they're on opposite ends: philosophy teaches you autonomous experiential thinking, religion asks you to follow some third party authority.
"From 2001 to 2023, nearly 1 in 4 women service members experienced sexual assault"
"the Army took no action to address the string of female soldiers attacked in their barracks"
"Between 2021 and 2023, the Army recorded a total of 16 homicides among active-duty women, Hagan told The Intercept. The data provided to The Intercept for its FOIA request counts only nine.[…] If the same pattern of undercounting extends across the full 14-year span of our data, the true toll could be substantially higher."
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth eliminated the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. It had existed for nearly 75 years, focusing on issues including sexual harassment and assault."
"A Project on Government Oversight investigation revealed thousands of abuse cases involving Army personnel were mishandled, many never entered into tracking systems. Investigators could only look at 10 out of more than 60 Army installations."
I sympathize with all Russian citizens living abroad. While citizenship is something you can get out of, it is a long process and circumstances may not easily allow it. I don't think it's fair to discriminate against Russian citizens without hearing their story, even the ones still living in Russia, for actions taken by their rogue government. Do US Americans really want to be held individually accountable for everything Trump does or will do?
I understand how comments like yours and other sibling comments will generate feelings of being treated unfairly: We do not choose our birth country. We do not know the individual's actions, we do not know their political stance, and it is not racist but still discriminatory to use their nationality against them. They're already punished enough by being associated with their government. That's at least how I see it.
Then again, it is probably due to EU wide legislation, so not something Estonia can do much about even if they wanted to. I hope they find emotional support to detach their individuality from how Russians (and Ukrainians!) are treated in general in the current dynamics. It's not their fault as individual, and I'm sorry that they became victims.
The idea of reading is that you yourself think and reason about it, not that you blindly trust anything based on the author's name, deeds, or reputation. Ad hominems are a cheap way to remain ignorant and - yet again - fall into the trap of blindly believing some other third party.
Which is something the person will definitely experience as punishment, and might make matters only worse afterwards, especially if that "removal" doesn't include therapeutic processes (which is the current state of affairs mostly)?
I see a lot of parallels and a shared interest in removing/reducing violence. The title and summary of the linked book may give the impression that the focus is elsewhere; maybe the introduction will help to see more of the shared research interest, or make it clearer where you disagree on the approaches?
> "Unfortunately, so far, the existing empirical work has not had a central place in policy, legislation, and political discourse (Loughran 2019, Nelken & Hamilton 2022). Unsurprisingly, scholars have been frustrated that their insights on, for instance, the inconclusive evidence for the deterrent effect of incarceration on violent crime or the evidence that treatment can help to rehabilitate have not had sufficient impact (Cullen et al. 2011, McGuire 2013).
> Empirical research has failed to sway policymakers and political leaders for many reasons, too many to cover fully here. For instance, one can broadly think about high levels of punitiveness in certain cultures and jurisdictions, such as the American context (Kleinfeld 2016, Muenster & Trone 2015). Moreover, there has been a penal populism where politicians have sold the public on a simplistic discourse that they need and want strict punishment against crime (Roberts et al. 2003, Windlesham 1998). Added to this is the discriminatory and racist framing of crime as part of a dog-whistle political strategy (Haney-López 2015). Another problem is a more general aversion to science, and a populist politics that drives on simplicity instead of nuanced, evidence-based policy (Huber et al. 2022). These headwinds foster a more challenging set of conditions not just for altering policy but even for the bare minimum of having robust and legitimate conversations about effective and ineffective punishment."
("Twenty-five years ago, I sought out Gary Slutkin while searching for a solution to the gun violence we experienced in Los Angeles. I got far more than I hoped for. The methods he describes in his groundbreaking new book helped reduce our gun violence to historic lows and save thousands of lives.”—Charlie Beck, former chief of police, Los Angeles Police Department")
If the law permits it, a 12-year old has no other choice but to agree to whatever their parents want. It is well documented that children dissociate to keep an image of "good parents" alive, regardless of their action. Very few 12-year olds -- or 16-year olds -- will break with their families over this, and even then the break will psychologically haunt them forever. This is how you breed violence, and we need to stop lying to ourselves and others about it.
The cited report states that some cases in the United States involved children as young as 10. The average age gap (not mean age gap) across all 300,000 cases is ~4 years older for the male. I understand they pick extraordinary cases, but a single case is sufficient to understand why this is not working. "This is not the majority of cases" is a misdirection.
"He was aged 18. Mandy was 12. His grooming and abuse continued for years, fully sanctioned by Mandy’s mother, who spoke of God’s plan. He proposed to her four years later, and she tried to say no. After exhausting every possible way to escape what her parents were forcing her to do, she ran away, but as a minor, she had no power. Her parents were able to force her back home and into marriage."https://www.unchainedatlast.org/united-states-child-marriage...
That aside, there are plenty of developmental psychology arguments why you should not allow children to marry at 16; even if they wanted to and did it out of their "free will" (whatever that may be at 16). You will, again, breed dysfunctional families, and (not only) domestic violence.
> it was impossible to obtain an address without providing some service or newsletter on a specific subject to the sysop in return
Huh? Not when I joined in my region. I didn't have to provide anything.
I was 14, but the BBS owner and mostly old guy heavy metal user base only found out when I later showed up at their annual user group meeting - and we had lots of fun (and drinks) together! They even took me clubbing later with a fake ID, and I woke up heavily wasted in the BBS owner's student apartment and we had microwaved frozen pizza together. Fun times.
"More than 30 [US] states nationwide have no ban on child marriage. And it is not an anomaly. According to the non-profit Unchained At Last, since the year 2000, the United States has documented 315,000 cases of child marriage within its own borders—largely sanctioned by the Church and courts. No federal law bans child marriage in America. Not one."
"CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979. Afghanistan has ratified this treaty. The United States has not."
"Today, the spectacle of America condemning child marriage abroad while refusing to adopt the international treaty that prohibits it is a moral and legal incoherence that undermines every word we say."
11 cycles this time. Went a bit further into the dizziness, since I was more prepared for it this time. Unsure whether it makes sense to just stay with the dizziness as long as I can, or whether I should stop earlier. Probably either is fine as long as I am somewhat confident about it?