LitFan

I would say that in at least some cases over eating and anxiety are both symptoms of underlying problems. Stress, emotional issues, and trauma can all lead someone to either of the two.

As someone that uses food as a coping mechanism for stress, I agree with the GP - if the underlying problem isn't resolved, the weight will come back.

Seeing a parallel to another field with more blatant examples of the types of discrimination keeping women out of tech-related jobs is helpful.

And more discussion around these issues is more likely to lead to positive outcomes than ignoring them.

Harass: to disturb or irritate by persistent acts

While one person saying this once is not necessarily harassment, the frame of reference has to be from the context of the recipient. Consider how often the author has to hear this or similar comments from customers as a result of being a woman working in a trade.

It sounds like from your perspective, being better looking than their co-workers is a good thing. By and large, men are going to find women better looking than other men. That means the "better looking" comment is directly pointing out that the recipient of the comment is a woman.

This article is talking specifically about the ways in which it is detrimental to be a tradeswoman. So in this context, being a woman makes it more difficult for this person to their job.

Looking at another example of something that would make being a tradesperson difficult: Would you call it harassment if customers were consistently making flippant remarks about a co-worker that was missing a hand?

Someone could make a website about this single concept. domainwashing.com?

Do you boycott any other companies based in, or products made in China?

Agreed. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to do blood testing as part of a kid's regular checkup cycle. Doctors use metrics to determine whether kids are growing properly (height + weight, as well as a general visual check), but are those the best metrics? It's likely they're just "good enough".

It helps the other 29 kids in the class until there are altercations involving 5-7 of those.

Then it helps the other 22 kids in the class. What's the endgame? Do you suspend half the kids in the classroom because they're causing a disturbance for the other half?

Something this whole argument misses is that school is a great mechanism to teach kids to interact with each other and learn to solve problems.

It's a bad idea to teach kids that everything is always black and white.

This is a good argument for government funded R&D, and government owned drugs.

They cost a ton of money and take forever to create, so the product becomes very expensive, and rights to it are owned by the creating company. The government empowers a body to regulate the flow of new drugs on the market, and once the drug meets regulatory requirements, the government - in many cases - pays on behalf of the patient.

A company is interested in making a profit on their time investment, whereas the government could be content to break even (for the good of their citizens).

If the government instead paid a company to do the R&D, maybe even providing access to approved facilities where the work is to be done, the government could then retain ownership of that product and then create agreements with drug manufacturers to produce those drugs.

This solves a couple of problems, like sole producers of a product arbitrarily increasing prices (it is expensive and time consuming to set up production for a new drug, even if it is off patent), as well as supply issues (I don't think right now the FDA has any rules saying a drug company must be able to supply a certain amount of a drug to get their license to distribute).

It wouldn't be as hard as you're implying.

The rate of suicide is much higher in prison than out, and is also higher after release for people who have served their prison sentence.

And that's without an impending death sentence - just a regular prison term.

I can't imagine it'd be that different because they were incarcerated incorrectly.

As I said - I intend to teach them to function on their own. I treat them like people rather than kids as much as possible.

That doesn't address the legal concerns.

> Teach your kids about dangerous things outside, introduce them to the community and teach them how to ask strangers for help.

I intend to do this.

I also plan on giving my kids cell phones when they're old enough (School age, is my current assumption), and will ask them to share their locations with me.

However, To say that parents have no right to infringe on the privacy or personal autonomy of their children is incorrect.

I'm legally responsible for the well being of my kids. I'm legally required to ensure my child is safe at all times. This can involve leaving my child with another guardian, but for various reasons I'm not about to trust the school.

I can be sent to prison for a maximum of 2 years and fined $50,000 if I break these laws. Being absent from my children's lives for 2 years would damage their development.

I can present all this information to my children and ask them to decide if they want me to know where they are at all times. You could make the argument that they're not mature enough to give me that permission.

It does not.

I can post but I can't figure out how to read. After posting I'm taken back to the home page.

I tried to go to sincere.chat/read but I got a silly 404. :)

>(As for "food on the table", lower income people "invest" in lottery tickets. They clearly do have discretionary income.)

Low income people are desperate to get out of their situation because in a lot of cases, it's barely livable.

The information in the article shows that they're largely correct; A disproportionate amount of compensation goes to a small number of people - and that amount is so skewed that it can't possibly be based on performance.

If the system they're in appears illogical, you can't fault them for acting illogically.