• 0 Posts
  • 357 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneyikes rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Could he? Wizards are apparently able to handle significantly more physical trauma than Muggles and have access to considerably more advanced medicine.

    Like, they teach 11 year olds to play sports on flying brooms several stories in the air in which they hit heavy balls at each other very fast. They teach 16 year olds to teleport with the explicit risk that they might mess up and leave part of themself behind (and we don’t even ask the question of what happens if there’s something physically blocking their target location, such as another person). Somehow, the school doing these things doesn’t have multiple fatalities every year which means that getting hit then falling 60 feet to the ground is generally not a death sentence, or even a particularly serious injury.

    You shoot Voldemort pre-horcruxes and he’s likely going to apparate away, drink a healing concoction of some variety, and try again in a few hours or days unless it’s a headshot. You shoot him post-horcrux, and even if it is a headshot that’s just a somewhat longer delay. And that presumes a lack of some kind of magical defense that would block a small projectile coming at you very fast.


  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneyikes rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I mean I’m somewhat interested in how the Wizarding world manages to keep hidden despite all the kids from the muggleworld supposedly having friends and connections and things before Hogwarts.

    I imagine the kindest answer to that involves magical law enforcement obliviating and confounding any witnesses, akin to how Gilderoy Lockhart had a career but perpetrated at scale on a large populous of second-class citizens (aka Muggles). Which is horrifying, but any other answer I can think of is somehow worse than wizard cops mind raping anyone who saw anything.


  • I used to argue that whoever was ultimately responsible for safety at a chemical plant should be required to have them and their family live close enough that if shot goes wrong, they’ll definitely be among the worst effected.

    But then I live within the greater Charleston, WV area, and there’s a plant in a town called Institute here that makes and handles MIC, most notoriously known for being made less poisonous for use as pesticide and being the stuff that leaked and caused the Bhopal incident back when.



  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneyikes rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    and letting children marry.

    Most still do so long as the line being drawn is “is there any hypothetical situation in which a 17 year old can legally marry?” Most of those specifically allow older teens (16 or 17 depending on the state) to marry under narrow circumstances, usually requiring any minor have parental consent and/or court approval before allowing it. All states allowed under-18 marriage in some conditions until 2018, and only about a dozen have set a hard 18 limit with no exceptions since then.

    With CA being one of the worst offenders in that it has no hard legal minimum age of marriage at all and relies on parents and courts to prevent serious abuse (no minimum but requires approval from one parent or guardian and the court). MA was very similar with no hard minimum at all until recently passing a hard 18 minimum.

    Which means if you have the right people in your pocket (a parent or guardian and a judge) you could hypothetically marry someone very underage in CA then cart them off to a state where marriage is an explicit exception to age of consent (such as NM) and engage in legal CSA.














  • You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.

    Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.

    There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It’s about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it’s worse among Dems than GOP.

    That’s why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it’s not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.