drewdarko

joined 1 year ago
[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Ya these responses are making some really weird assumptions. Don’t let them gaslight you.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a really weird assumption that he has some hidden ~~pedophile~~ sexual urges just because he doesn’t want to see someone’s genitals.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I don’t understand why you assume it’s sexual.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like my opinion is an unpopular one here but here goes:

If the tables were turned and it was an adult revealing too much of their body to a child and making the child uncomfortable it would be inappropriate.

If someone goes out in public naked under a trench coat and exposes themselves to people who don’t want to see their genitals it’s sexual assault.

I realize different countries have different social norms but just because a scandanavian country is ok with nudity doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is or has to be. You have your own social norms based on where you live and at least in the US, certain body parts make the majority uncomfortable when visible. I don’t see this as right or wrong, just local customs.

If social norms were to change to accept nudity then that would change the situation. Some of these comments downplay the fact that it makes you uncomfortable just because nudity is accepted in a scandanavian country. Which is like saying: “In middle eastern countries woman must be fully covered at all times so you should live by that custom”, which is the opposite side of the same spectrum of acceptable nudity.

It’s my opinion that we all have to coexist and that means taking other peoples feeling into consideration to some degree. Even if those feelings are formed from social norms that change depending on where you are.

To answer your question, I don’t think it is good to talk directly to the daughter and tell her to change the way she dresses but I would let her mother know it makes me uncomfortable and try to find a compromise.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

If it fits I shit

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So don’t pay and make them work for it.

With the labor shortage right now it would be expensive for loan collectors to hire enough workers to track down and force payments if people stop paying on a large scale.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

So don’t pay and make them work for it.

With the labor shortage right now it would be expensive for loan collectors to hire enough workers to track down and force payments if people stop paying on a large scale.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not all student loans were eligible for forgiveness.

That sign is saying people who were going to pay their loans should also not pay out of protest.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ya, op got it figured out thx to you that’s the important part. I just wanted to add a little clarity for the poor bastard that will come across this post after googling “Ford Focus coolant leak”.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’ve only seen bypass valves that block off one of the two heater core hoses to prevent flow but not both. Same idea as a thermostat blocks only one side of your radiator to prevent flow. So even though coolant isn’t flowing, it is heating up and pressurizing. There may be vehicles out there with an unusual design that blocks both inlet and outlet hoses to the heater core. But this isnt one of them.

Not trying to argue, just trying to share some of my knowledge as a former Ford tech.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Even with that design it would leak coolant. The bypass just prevents the flow of coolant but it should always be primed with coolant even when it isn’t flowing.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What fossil fuel will they import in the next 10-20 years that it will take to make the nuclear plants?

Nuclear and renewables shouldn’t be opposed. Ideally we would have both. The problem is we needed to stop burning fossil fuels a long time ago so we don’t have another 10-20 years to keep burning fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear plants to be made.

The fossil fuel industry knows that if we take the nuclear ONLY route that we will continue to burn their fuels for decades longer. So they lobby to support that option, hoping that a lot or some of the nuclear plants will never even get finish like we’ve seen happen so many times.

In addition to that, countries don’t have infinite money to spend on energy. So any amount of the budget spent on nuclear will mean less spent on solar and wind. Solar and wind are the only sources that can be deployed fast enough to allow us to avoid extinction.

view more: ‹ prev next ›