Yeah, sure… My understanding of philo-semitism really isn’t that it implies blind support for genocidal efforts, though.

That being said, I was really just commenting on the word itself, not the news article.

Not to tell you how to live your life - and do take note that I don’t know you or your dad personally - but this sounds like a piece of generational trauma that you have the opportunity to get rid of. Best of luck!

I’d assume the term would be semitiphilism.

Looking it up, Judeophilia would be a word for philo-semitism as well.

Hasbro had to base their designs on something, I guess…

Why the fuck did you have to pay rent the day you turned 18?!

Yeah, that would be a detriment to your financial stability.

There’s a place called New Land, New Found Land?! Hilarious.

Convenient for me, that is.

Not here; They’re still called Toys “R” Us.

And from looking at the Wikipedia for Smyths it seems that they bought the Toys “R” Us stores in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Not really the same thing as here (Portugal, btw), I think, since they kept the branding, but IDK, I’m not an IP lawyer…

Oh, alright, I guess…

If you say so… It guess there’s a lot of unempathetic people around.

Do I?

Uh, looking that up, it really doesn’t seem to be true.

None of these ever existed in my country, except for Toys “R” Us, which still exists.

I guess this depends on the parents. Well, and on you, I suppose.

You would notice that I wrote, as a condition of the hypothetical, that you agree with the banning. Hence, it is perfectly irrelevant if you think it’s crazy, in actuality. It’s a hypothetical. You know? A hypothetical - a make-believe situation, if you will - to illustrate the question. It’s when you imagine something that isn’t real in hopes that, that way, you could maybe distance yourself from other factors that could cloud your judgement if you were tackling a real problem.

It does seem, based on yours and others’ replies, that this particular hypothetical wasn’t very effective. For that, I apologize.

I will, however, point out that it is indeed normal to be upset at other people when they wear intense and obtrusive perfumes, or if they smell intensely of something. If you smell terrible - including strong or disagreeable perfumes - you won’t be allowed into many establishments, may be kicked out of public transport, etc. So no, it’s not utter insanity, it’s actually perfectly normal.

Then again, nobody was arguing about that! So, I guess that’s that.

Lotsa fun :D

Cool tails :D

Right, OK, I get what you mean.

Well, other than this:

but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide.

Why?

Getting shot in the head is worse than getting stabbed in the calf, but I still think you shouldn’t stab me in the calf! Obviously that’s a very extreme example, but these rules exist for a reason.

The dog may seem well-behaved for now, but what if it gets bothered by something random, as dogs do? The whole point of the rule is to prevent aggressive dogs from bothering people, because owners seem to always think their dogs wouldn’t hurt a fly. If you only complain about a dog being unleashed after a dog misbehaves, then aren’t you just asking for an issue to happen, instead of preventing it by enforcing the rule?

You get what I mean?

Then again, it does bother me when people don’t use crosswalks or cut in line lol

Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.

Well, that’s why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that… I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said “well I wouldn’t want it banned.”

Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?

Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.

Edit: Wait, now I’m confused.

Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?

I feel like you might’ve misunderstood the question?

When I said “upset” I didn’t mean that you would fly into a fit of rage, I didn’t even really mean that you would confront the other person (though those are things that you might do, I suppose), just that you would find that it sat wrong with you and you would feel that the other person was wrong to do it. Perhaps “upset” was the wrong word to use there, sorry about that.

There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ. They need to be justifiably upset.

That’s why I said that you already agree that the thing should be banned! The whole point is that you already think that they are justifiably upset, and that what the people are doing is wrong and shouldn’t be done.

Sorry… I did get some people before saying that my hypothetical wasn’t very good. I see that it’s caused some confusion for several people.