Cocktails without alcohol cost way too much for what they are. That would be like paying 15 bucks for a burger without meat.

Restaurants sometimes also have like dozens of types of beer, wine, etc. but the best non-alcoholic they can do is a water or a coca cola softdrink?

Why would I use spaces if I use tabs? Also, it seemd like a huge waste of time hitting the space bar so many times…

What is a convenience store for? I always thought they were for areas with fewer supermarkets but why do I need a convenience store if I have a supermarket close?

I’m not sure I’ve ever been to an actual bar. Isn’t it just a restaurant without the food? (There are a couple of restaurants near me that serve cocktails).

They’re two different things to me. Although I don’t get why I’d walk to a gas station… Maybe for some diesel lawn mowers or something?

Most things I have nearby too but you have a sports arena (stadium or similar) in walking distance?

I can reach everything on that list in 15mins by foot except for a sports arena and a hospital.

Yeag tgats what I meant with “unsplit”. Just do that for work and then unite again for the free time.

I was thinking something more along the lines of splitting the work equally, then synching memories after and then I have way more free tine (I’d unsplit for that).

Those “beliefs” are in no way representative of “the other” political opinion. For example, here’s my opinion on the matter (and I disagree with every one of the 4 conservative extremist “beliefs” you posted about) so you can understand what political differences I’m referring to:

• You can love/marry/have sex with anyone you want to, it doesn’t matter what gender. (Most people would be onboard)
• There are (maybe appart from people who were born with a different number of chromosomes) 2 genders (already some political disagreement here)
• Feeling that a gender doesn’t belong to one doesn’t change the gender. Just like feeling like I have blond hair doesn’t change the fact that I have brown hair. (This is were people heavily disagree and you can’t easily present either opinion on this as the sole truth).

It might be important to note that this is not meant as an insult to you or to anyone and it doesnt mean I dont respect trans people.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this…

Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences

Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I’m wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.

I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.

What I think is UNFAIR is trying to “convert” one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.

Not quite. The thing is, gender identities is a complex topic with vastly different (political) opinions. To objectively explain it, you would have to present the different views and how some people believe this and others believe that. However, children don’t do well with these multiple realities, most would most likely ask you “Well, which one is true?”. That, however, is a political opinion.

I therefore think it should be up to the parents to educate their kids in that regard, according to how they see fit, and not up to the institutions, at least not until kids are old enough to reflect about their political views and form their own opinion upon being presented with the topic in an objective way.

I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.

Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.

If it’s posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he’d have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.

Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it’s the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)…

Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine’s money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)

1. Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).

2. Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.

Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.

Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That’s why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.

Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn’t we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?

It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)…

You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?

Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.

Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.

Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.

“The chicken” by Bo Burnham. Don’t be fooled by that title.

Thats 8 square-pounds.