Oliver

Historically, parents have always been allowed nearly complete autonomy in raising their own children. Parents were assumed to have their child's best interests in mind, and nobody looked too closely at their methods.

However, that is no longer the case. Child abuse cases are getting a lot more media attention, and questions are being raised about where parental autonomy is no longer appropriate. Where do you think that one's rights as a parent should give way to the interests of the child and/or society as a whole?

Some points to consider:

- Should pregnant women be compelled to give birth in the safest possible environment (e.g. at a hospital or under supervision of a licensed medical doctor)? Should they be able to opt for a home birth under supervision of a midwife or non-medical individual?

- Some jurisdictions have ruled that only licensed medical professionals may perform minor surgical procedures such as circumcision. Should parents be able to opt for more traditional routes, such as circumcision by a rabbi? Should parents even be able to allow such a procedure if it isn't needed for legitimate medical reasons?

- Should parents be allowed to physically punish their children? Where is the line between a spanking and child abuse?

- Should parents be allowed to pull their children (6-12 years old) from sex ed classes? Should they be able to pull their teenagers (13-17) from such classes? What about parents who want to pull their children from science lessons about evolution?

- A fuss was raised a while ago when a mother was fined for failing to provide her children with a "grain" in their sack lunch. Should parents be allowed to raise their children on a vegetarian, vegan, paleo, or atkins diet? What about parents who allow their children to become obese?

- Should parents be allowed to provide alcohol to their children? Even if they are not permitted to do so legally? What about parents who buy condoms or sex toys for their children?

Of course the list can go on. Thanks everyone for your opinions!

I'm sure we all remember the horror stories from high school sex ed and all of the warnings of "Abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy."

Now that you are (or were) on the other side and actually trying for pregnancy, you are probably acutely aware that the business of making a baby is nowhere as easy as you were told when you were 14.

What issues came up that you never even imagined would be issues?

Say you have found the love of your life, and after years of dating you have decided to get married. You decide to get a blood test about two weeks before the ceremony, and the results come back and show that you are both related by blood. You have already invited everyone, bought the rings, and rented the venue. How close would that relationship have to be before you called off the wedding?

A shared grandparent? (Cousins)

A shared great-grandparent? (Second cousins)

A shared great-great-grandparent? (Third cousins)

A shared great-great-great-grandparent?

Also, how close would you be willing to marry if you shared no common blood but were related through marriage?

Step sibling? (Assume you didn't grow up togther)

Someone who married into the family, but divorced back out of it? (Bonus: what if they had kids?)

Cousin through marriage? (E.g. Your dad's sister's husband's brother's child)

Any further degree of relation?

Just a question that's been on my mind for a while.

Suppose that you have one of those high school physics problems where a person throws a ball straight up into the air. We know that it decelerates at -9.8m/s^2 until its velocity decreases to 0 and then it begins to accelerate back down at 9.8m/s^2.

But what is the actual duration at which the ball sits--perfectly motionless--at the top of its trajectory? I know that it cannot be zero seconds, or the ball would not stop at all. In the perfectly theoretical world of physics, it would be an infinitely divisible period of time that is greater than zero.

But what about in the real world? We know that there is no such thing as "infinitely divisible" in the real world. Has this ever been calculated or measured before? Is it even possible to measure, or would we simply be referring to planck-units of time?

Thanks for your responses!

It's hard to look into the politics and laws around the drinking age without running into people who adamantly support the drinking age of 21. They cite all sorts of arguments to back their claim and why the drinking age should never ever be lowered to 18.

BUT, I have noticed that most of these people don't think this age applies internationally. As an example, my old college had a very strict alcohol policy, and actively defended the drinking age. However, it pushes for all students to participate in its Study Abroad program, and openly encourages students to drink while traveling. One of my classmates enrolled in the program to study in Ireland for the summer, and his parents (who adamantly argued that the drinking age is 21 for a reason, and threatened to disown him if they caught him drinking underage) told him not to leave until he tried real Guinness in an Irish pub.

This represents a fundamental gap in their reasoning. They support the drinking age of 21 because 18-20 year olds are not (in their opinion) mature enough to drink. You do not become mature enough for a drink the second you step over the border if you were not mature before. And citing obedience to the law is no defense at all - to support a law, it is necessary to support the *theory* behind the law. If I support anti-bigamy laws, I cannot move to a Muslim country, take multiple wives, and cite Sharia law as justification for my actions.

Either you think U.S. college students are mature enough to drink at 18, or you think they should abstain from alcohol until age 21 regardless of foreign laws.

What are your thoughts on this?

Nobody will disagree that society needs laws. But, some laws are notorious for being something that "everybody does". Consider:

-Underage drinking

-Speed limits

-Marijuana prohibition (and other drugs)

-Underage sex, viewing of pornography, and sexting

-Driving without a seatbelt

I'm sure many of you are guilty of these. I'll admit openly that I did not shy away from a beer once I turned 18; that I sent racy photos to my girlfriend of 6 months when I was 17; that I drive 55 in a 45 zone every day on my way to work...simply because it's safe and practical. I don't smoke marijuana, but I honestly could not name 10 people my age who never have.

So, if nobody respects the law (and it is a "victimless crime" such as driving without a seatbelt or ingesting something that isn't healthy), is it then time to have a serious discussion about that law's validity? Remember that Prohibition and the Jim Crow laws were only repealed because the people of the nation took a stand against them.

What are your thoughts on this?

I recently received an old mountain bike from a family member, who said it was mine if I could fix it. After taking it for a test spin, I determined that the front wheel was slightly warped, and the rear freewheel was filled with rust, which caused the chain to go slack while coasting. Most of the rest of the bike is in reasonably good condition, but this is a 15+ year old Huffy from Walmart. I'm going to take a whack at replacing the rear wheel with a spare one my dad has, but I'm not optimistic that this bike will be rideable.

Worst case scenario, what is the best thing to do with an old bike? I live a few miles from a recycling place, but I doubt they will give me more than $3-5 for the whole thing. Plus, they will give me the soda can aluminum price while I'm fairly sure this is made of a more valuable aluminum. Are there any places that buy bikes for scrap metal/parts, or should I just take $10 at a garage sale?

Say we have a married couple where both partners are of the same race/nationality. They have an open marriage, and frequently engage in 100% unprotected sex with other people, intending to raise any children as their own. The other partners have no interest whatsoever in even knowing if they cause the wife to become pregnant, much less being involved in the child's life.

If the wife becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child that is clearly not the husband's (e.g. mixed race while the couple is white), can the husband legally sign the birth certificate without having to take any legal steps? In theory, the husband is automatically assumed to be the father unless the wife and/or biological father say otherwise. Is this true even if he is clearly not, but is uncontested?

Interesting legal dilemma: why is consensual incest between adults a criminal activity? I can understand the opposition to recognizing marriages between family members, but why does the act itself carry criminal penalties of up to life imprisonment? Why does the government care as long as both parties are over the age of consent?

Interesting scenario came to me a while ago: we all know that teens can be (and are) convicted of child pornography charges for sending racy photos to friends or romantic partners. But what if said "minor" is under 18 but legally an adult?

Here's our imaginary scenario:

Sally is a 17 year old senior in high school. While dating 18 year old Jack, she became pregnant. Wanting to do the right thing, her parents gave her permission to marry Jack to have the baby. They are now legally married and living together. One day, Sally sends a nude picture to Jack. Jack forgets to delete the picture, and it is somehow found by someone, who reports him to the police.

Would such a case go to court? Is it legal? If not, do you think exceptions should be made for such a scenario? Keep in mind that Sally is not a child, but Jack's legal spouse at this point.

In the modern age, how do religions get people to convert? I know that in the Christian/Islamic era the majority of religions were built upon fairy tales and vague explanations for why things work the way they do. Most can more or less be proven to be incorrect (especially ones featuring jealous gods who threaten to destroy the world if not appeased with sacrifice) so it is not surprising that European "pagan" religions were essentially extinct by the middle ages. But in the face of scientific skepticism, how do religions snag new converts every year?

I was raised as a Catholic and eventually left the church when I realized that I just didn't "buy it". I'll go ahead and classify myself as an agnostic: I don't believe in associating with any faith that cannot prove its beliefs. Numerous attempts were made in college to "save me" which generally consisted of people telling me to read one book and ignore another one. No hard facts were given outside of those books, which referenced themselves as authoritative.

Here's the thing: both the Bible and Qur'an claim to be the word of God. Both claim to be with the same level of authority, and roughly equal populations believe them to be the Word. But, they aren't compatible books, and the religions associated with them are quite different. Christians say you need to be a Christian because the Bible is the word of God, and Muslims say you need to be a Muslim because the Qur'an is the word of God. So how could a rational person choose between them with the lack of any evidence that is not self-referential?

And I know this is asking the impossible, but please try to keep things civilized here. I get it, TROLOLOLOLO. Now go back to 4chan unless you have something intelligent to contribute.

Hello all,

My wife has taken up baking as a hobby, and has outgrown the cheap mixer that we bought, and has been eying a more professional-grade mixer. She has used her mother's Pro 500 mixer and fell in love with it, although they don't seem to make those anymore. I am thinking about getting her a Pro 600 model to surprise her for our anniversary (she thinks she is getting one for Christmas), but I was curious if anyone has any better suggestions? Any input is appreciated!

Hypothetical scenario:

College student is audiophile; has roughly 10,000 songs. Some are legally paid for or ripped from a CD. Some are pirated major-label bands. Some are pirated indie-label bands. The rest are freely downloaded songs from not-for-profit bands.

RIAA finds college student downloading torrents, and decides to make an example of this student by filing a lawsuit.

Considering that some of these tracks are legal, some are illegal and owned by the RIAA, and some are illegal but NOT owned by the RIAA. What would most likely happen?

1. RIAA will go through the painstaking process of trying to discern which tracks they can legally sue over, one file at a time, and will not press charges for indie/free files

2. RIAA will discern which files were pirated, and press charges for all of them, indie label or not

3. RIAA will attempt to press charges for everything, even free files

4. RIAA will drop the case, due to the difficulty in discerning legal vs. illegal

And suppose, for a twist, the college student is in fact Indie McHipster, and has pirated ONLY indie-label music, and those labels are not interested in pressing charges against fans. What then?