deleted by creator

Probably something like this

Seconding Magnatiles

Also, marble runs!

Mental health is a squishier standard. Let’s say I had depression and decided to talk to someone about it, get the help I needed to become mentally healthy again. Should that necessarily be penalized if I want to go buy a gun to go out to the range or hunting with my buddies? Should seeking help disqualify someone entirely? Does that prevent people from getting help they think they might need, stigmatizing an already stigmatized practice?

Meanwhile, if Dave down the hill has a record, he’s already shown he was willing to do an illegal thing, whether or not the record is fair. If he already has reports against him for domestic disturbances, that’s pretty cut and dry violent behavior that ought not be allowed to intensify.

I’m not saying mental checks aren’t a good idea or aren’t worth it. I’m saying that they’re a harder sell because a) they take more nuance to formulate well and b) the propaganda machine will have an easier time telling people how those checks are overreach.

Ahh, the ol’ Alberto Gonzales effect.

If a person killed 8 babies, by definition, they have killed 7, and thus fit the “worst” standard that OP specified.

Your comment led me towards an amusing thought: in the Harry Potter universe, goblins sell things to wizards for the duration of the wizard’s life, but then they expect it to go back to the goblins because ownership works differently for them vs wizards. Wizards don’t always/usually understand or respect that. So… If I ever was in the position to open a brothel, perhaps I’d name it “The Goblin’s Den.” I… Don’t know what kind of clientele that would attract though.

Ah yes, the world wide webiverse. The net. Dialed in. Where you’ve got mail!

Haha, yeah, I don’t agree, but I also really like Dave Rintoul as Darcy… From the old adaptation. So there’s my unpopular opinion. Matthew McFayden will always primarily be the stressed son from “Death at a Funeral” for me.

I had a young woman, maybe 17 last semester, turn in a paper --it was a 12 page research/argumentative paper about why gender complementarianism (ie woman and men have different, distinct roles with men at the top). She’s a good student, a good writer, but literally she’s heard this set of morals from the pulpit her whole life… So like… Yeah. I read another young man’s paper where his takeaway from 12 Years a Slave was “wow, not all slave owners were abusive monsters–some were pretty kind and treated their slaves like family.” The kids are as alright as the rest of us are.

Friend, the question proposed $500 Million to play with, not $500 thousand. You have a lot more budget to play with.

But see, if someone admits that their parents/grandparents/etc were flawed, then they might come to the realization that they need to examine the ideas they grew up with, maybe change some. Maybe they themselves have behaved problematicly based on things they were taught. And what if that person starts questioning their faith/faith community’s behavior as part of this introspection? What if questioning makes a person feel as though they’re not “honoring their father and their mother”?

I’m 100% for that introspection and personal honestly, but I can see where a lot of people will be too scared of the work. More will be more scared of the “evil” of critical thought and nuance.

Cork let go. Cork was… Free.

And then came an explosion of sound.

I’m sure there are plenty of podcasts that cover this group and happening. This is the one I like.

They are doing the same playbook. The longer I’m an adult, the less inclined I am to defend parents’ rights so strongly. Children are people, not property.