u/Winston_Duarte

In my experience -and please correct me if you have a different opinion - the only people in any religion that are dangerous are those who are convinced their god is the only true one and non-believers must be punished or converted.

I would like to see a permanent ban or hard regulation on how public space is granted for the purpose of evangelical purposes. That means all of them. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientology, Hindu, Shinto Buddhists and everyone else who falls into these groups.

My reasoning is simple. Tolerance begins with acceptance that your neighbour is different. That your neighbour worships a different god. But evangelism is the definition of not accepting that there are people worshipping different gods.

And maybe a more straightforward and realistic approach: groups with programs aimed at evangelistic deeds shall loose their tax exemption status. No grey area. Either you get tax exemption or evangelise. Pick one.

There are two sides to this question. I am wondering at which side you stand

One side argues about out mental and emotional fragility that might very well be linked to changes in parenting and early education avoiding challenges.

Helicopter parents are one of these factors. Parents who make sure that the kids will never have to face any struggles or challenges until they graduate high school. Another might be the idea that everyone is special and deserves an equal attention price after tournaments.

A third factor is the constant access to social media with a strong peer pressure in which the majority of kids are forced into conformity over risking disagreement that might turn instantly into online humiliation and cyber bullying. Many children do not risk being the odd one out, even if they silently disagree.

The other side argues that strength need to be redefined from older generations and are natural consequences of changes in abundance and social development.

Older generations defined themselves through challenges and suffering that is no longer a requirement. Such as men being strong only if they strictly refuse to acknowledge their own emotions. Women only being strong if they swallow their pride and be the dutiful housewife. This argument acknowledges the changes in social dynamics that allow women to follow their own career. Allowing a choice basically

Other factors that used to be considered weaknesses are today considered as strengths. For example diversity. There are still old folk talking about the idea that the calls for diverse workforces are a folly and merit should be the only factor that matters.

My own opinion: I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It certainly is true that in a direct difference between when I was in school and what I today see schools arguing about, it has become a place where more and more parents become over involved in their kids day to day education. And that teachers are now to blame for bad grades instead of the kids. Thinking back if I brought home an F, I lost my Play time at the Playstation for half a month.

During my time as a PhD student I was teaching a freshman course on basic botany dissection and DNA extraction methods. It happened almost once a month that someone cried over an experiment not working the first try. On the other end of the spectrum the old professors I met were above average brutal Sons of Bs. So the old definitions of strength are most certainly not something to strive for.

But I am looking forward to your experiences and opinions

​

I am not sure if I understand it correctly, but it seems like a primary goal of this act to limit transparency - which generally I am not a fan of.

However, I am not sure I understand the reasons and purposes of this act. Can you enlighten me please?

Location: New York Upstate, Near Syracuse

So I live a few miles from Syracuse and have a small house with a garden. Entire property is fenced. It allows for my dog to run freely when I am working on the house or just relax outside with the wife.

So in this case a few weeks ago I was working on the house. The roof to be precise. Suddenly I heard barking. Then a catish yelling and my dog being agitated. I saw a cat on my property and my dog in a brawl. My dog is a Vizla mix. Medium size but much larger than your average cat. My dog landed a bite before I made it down and intervened.

I did the only thing I could think of in the moment. Took off my jacket, threw it on the cat - the cat was bleeding - wrapped the cat gently and drove it to the vet. Not too far. Just a couple of miles.

Turned out the injuries were not as bad as it looked. Some bleeding but no permanent damage. A flesh wound in simple terms. The cat was chipped and the vet contacted the owners. I left my details and went home.

Without ever contacting me before I found a letter in my box from the owner demanding full payment of the vet bills plus 50k for her emotional suffering. If I do not pay up she is threatening legal procedures.

I am... Well upset. But action first. What should I do? Am I liable/at fault?