Your perception of the world isn't worsening because people aren't abusing their children enough. Your perception of the world is worsening because you're falling out of touch with it. Stop hitting your kids. It's child abuse. It's fucking them up and continuing a cycle of violence.

Stop hitting your dog, too.

The briefest of googles nets a mountain of evidence to the opposite.

WHO: "Corporal punishment is linked to a range of negative outcomes for children across countries and cultures, including physical and mental ill-health, impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, poor educational outcomes, increased aggression and perpetration of violence."

American Psychological Association: "Many studies have shown that physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children."

UT meta-study: "Given the strong link found between corporal punishment and aggression and antisocial behavior in childhood, it is not surprising that this association would continue into adulthood. Having learned that they can use aggression and force to compel others to do what they want in childhood, children persist in using aggression to control others’ behavior into adulthood."

Child abuse just does not lead to positive outcomes. Stop hitting your kids.

Ban corporal punishment, full stop. What in the the barbaric stone aged fuck. Everyone stop hitting each other.

The Post always mentions who's in a union the same way that slightly racist guy you know always mentions if someone is black in his anecdotes.You know, "Just to make sure you had the full picture".

Those posters remember 9/11.

They'd be on the front page of the NY Post for months. They'd have a new pun headline for it every day.

Yeah I have to agree. "Universal" is good and accurate, but "free" is a disingenuous word that only opens the door to tangential criticisms and distractions. It even sounds dishonest to someone hearing it with a critical ear. Imagine if "social security" was instead referred to as "free security" and that's how we promoted it?

I'm curious why the government always creates entirely new domain names to manage the communication for class action cases, I've seen that practice before and personally it that feels cheap and slapdash when ag.ny.gov exists. Is it because the AG was a party in the suit so it has to be managed by some other entity?

It's just a business gambit to these ghouls.

WWdBD? He would have DoE increase outreach to city families regarding the usefulness of the program and those empty spots would be filled within a few months. But Adams would never increase the intensity of any education program, so a crown jewel of his predecessor and nationally-visible party colleague will begin to rot. Let's not pretend this is anything other than mismanagement.

For scanning ships near the harbor for radiological weapons... Huh. Seems like something the navy or coast guard would be better suited for. Not that it doesn't seem like an important task but definitely not something I'm comfortable giving cops planes for, and the article illustrates why.

> an NYPD spy plane

I'm sorry but what the actual fuck? 😲

Yeah I get that, though I wasn't necessarily talking about city government. They were just the particular gov that tried to do it this time.

Thanks, that point about comparisons between animals and human suffering is actually helpful. I had a feeling that was the primary complaint, and I really do think that suffering is the same no matter who is experiencing it, but it'll be good to remember going into that analogy in the future to be explicit that I am just comparing suffering, and not the lived experiences of a person and the people they affect vs eg an animal on a farm. Or maybe just take mention of the species (Humans or animals) out of it entirely.

Well I'm vegan so yeah, right there with you bud.

I think that the majority of defensive reactions to animal activism can be explained as a protective mechanism against existing unexamined guilt or shame. But I could be biased because yes, I did go vegan as consequence of a crisis of guilt and shame. No, aggravating guilt or shame in others is not necessarily something I'd want to do as advocacy. Maybe if someone is right on the cusp of coming around, but not someone happily entrenched in animal exploitation through their normative culture, diet, identity, etc. Where exactly do you think I might have "poked the bear" a bit too hard, and how might I have done so better?

Well that's a thorough own right there. I do cede my comment!

Is this advice, or a defensive reflex?

Geese not being equivalent to children doesn't mean they don't suffer, and you already know that so you shouldn't be pretending like you don't just to be snappy on the internet.

Well yeah, that was kind of the rhetorical subtext.

Guess we should make slavery legal again, then. /s

> The way we treat cows, chickens, and pigs is not any better, yet there is no widespread call to ban eggs, chicken, beef, and pork.

There should be. The only difference is that people would push back harder against that than they do against foie gras.

Why would you assume they eat other animal products if they don't eat this one?

We usually agree wholeheartedly when the government bans certain inhumane practices. Why is this any different? Harboring a wide variety of views is one thing and that's just fine. That is very different from allowing actual suffering to carry on.

Puppy mills don't grease Albany with lots of lobbying money the way that animal ag does.