Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
I thought of a few stupid things, but everyone talking about kids made me think of this one.
I am strongly against Trickle down suffering.
“I put up with this terrible thing when I was your age, and even though we could stop it from happening to anyone, it’s important that we make YOU suffer through it too.”
Hazing, bullying, unfair labor laws, predatory banking and more. It’s really just the “socially acceptable” cycle of abuse.
I agree, and I take it this far: “I worked hard and paid for my house, why should some lazy loafer get housing for free? I paid 24,000$ in tuition, why should kids get free college?” I think that, at some point, one guy has to be the first guy to benefit from progress, and all the people who didn’t benefit just have to suck it up. I would 100% pay a much higher tax rate if it meant that homelessness was gone, hunger was gone, kids got free education… I’m Canadian, so I don’t need to say this about health care. Yeah, I paid an awful lot of mortgage, but if someone else gets a free house? Good!
UBI is coming to Canada sooner rather than later.
Strongly agree. Someone has to break the cycle of abuse, it’s wrong to contribute to the cycle so that it can continue harming others in the future.
Edit, one example that comes to mind is the extremely long shifts in the medical field in America. One guy who was really good at being a doctor happened to be someone who voluntarily took on very long hours. Now there is this persistent mindset that every medical worker must accept long hours and double shifts without notice and without complaints.
There are a few cases where it benefits the patient to avoid handing off the case to another doctor, but generally it just limits the pool of people who are willing to go into the medical field, and limits the career length and lifespan of the people who do go for it.
I sort of disagree. Some pain and suffering is what helps some people become better versions of themselves. Doesn’t work for everyone though, so it shouldn’t be the default experience, but rather a last resort.
I agree with OP, and I think you may as well but are stating it differently. Hardships and difficulty so indeed provide the opportunities to better oneself, but that shouldn’t come from contrived abuse like bullying or hazing. Those are instances of someone using their previous difficulty as an excuse to make it harder for someone else which I don’t believe is morally correct.
Maybe, maybe not. My thought for the comment was “tried to help, didn’t work, off you go and experience as is”.
Because not everyone learns the same way, so we can’t apply a fix-all universal method. Some kids, adults even, don’t get it until they experience it themselves.
What that “it” is changes from person to person and every time we think “why don’t they just understand”, maybe it’s that they can’t understand and need a different way of learning “it”. Which sometimes is painful.
I get you, and I agree with that. What I’m talking about is more specific. I’m not saying remove all suffering. Suffering will always exist. I’m saying if given the option to cause suffering to another or not, “well, it happened to me” is NOT justification for suffering.
Yes, facing adversity does build resilience. However, creating adversity for another just because YOU had to face it is wrong. I had a professor who called our career a “brotherhood of suffering” and would purposely create artificial stumbling blocks and make things more difficult because he had the same done to him. It’s perpetrating a cycle of abuse. I’ve now gotten to the point where I’ve taught in university and in the hospital and I try to break that cycle. It’s still a very difficult path, the content and pace are still taxing. Many still don’t make it to graduation, why make it harder then it needs to be?
Misguided pride or PTSD perhaps?
It’s not pain and suffering that you admire its perseverance. You can have one without the other.
Perseverance against what if not pain?
The fact that this is your reply goes to show you need to learn more.
Sorry, I’m not into S&M play.
Unavoidable pain and suffering, sure. This is about contrived, otherwise unnecessary suffering to “prove a point” or pay it forward in a negative way.
Absolute free speech is overrated. You shouldn’t be able to just lie out your ass and call it news.
The fact that the only people who had any claim against Fox for telling the Big Lie was the fucking voting machine company over lost profits tells you everything you need to know about our country
While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.
Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.
It’s not perfect, sure, but we as a society should be capable of deciding that some things aren’t okay without giving the state carte blanche to censor as they see fit. If the system can be abused, then we ought to fix it, not forgo it entirely.
Plus, governments and companies already suppress or ban a bunch of speech, often in favor of the ruling class. I doubt outlawing harmful speech like parent comment suggests would be the straw that breaks democracy’s back.
Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.
What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.
I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣
Nah,
If I walk up to you on the street and tell you to hand over your money or I’ll kill you, that’s enough to land me jail. Its maybe even enough for you to be justified in punching me in self defense, if you feared for your life and there was no other way you could ensure your safety.
But suddenly if I say I want to put a million people in a gas chamber that’s A-OK? Suddenly no one can punch back or else they’re “just as bad”? Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.
Its a crime to say you’ll kill one person, its your right to say you’ll kill a million.
I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.
To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.
Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.
Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.
The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.
You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.
The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.
So we can’t curtail the first amendment.
We can’t execute Nazis.
But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.
deleted by creator
Agreed, news needs to be held to a higher standard than it is now. There’s a whole list of journalist code of ethics that basically distils to be truthful, minimize harm, be independent, and be accountable.
*some example of minimize harm;
- don’t dig through a celebrities trash looking for condoms
- if there’s an accident you don’t show pictures of the dismembered victims
- don’t identify victims of abuse
- don’t claim an accusation as fact until proven (this why every news stations says “allegedly” all the time)
Housing as an investment is wrong.
The price of basic human needs should not be tied to the rise and fall of the stock market, nor should ones retirement depend on the hyper inflated values of houses. 500K+ for a small house is absolute price gouging bullshit, regardless of location.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. A house is to live in. It’s a place to live, not a financial instrument. They are only inherently worth some amount that aligns with wages in a given location.
So, like my first house cost a year of the median wage in my city; it was a wreck, so let’s say two years of pay was the average house. I think my mom’s house was around that too, but now they are more like 5x the median pay, that makes no sense because they are the same thing - a place to live.
I agree but what you’re talking about is not liking Capitalism since it has to do with why housing is an investment.
Most capitalism hatred is actually referring to this I think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Stopping corruption and making sure our laws are not loopholed by rich ppl or even just not enforced for the rich would make the world a lot better.
Every system is corrupt. The older you get, the more you learn things true. It’s also why communism doesn’t work. We’re inherently selfish. We can try to make it harder to take advantage of but people will always find a way.
The pay rate of the lowest paid worker of any company or institution should be somehow legally and directly tied to the pay rate of the highest paid executive.
If the executive wants to make more money and gets a raise, then so do the workers.
The government works for them, not us, so the somehow can only be a union.
Being “proud” of your acheivements is fine.
Being “proud” of your country or your state or your football team that you’re not a member of,or your ethnicity is douchebaggery.
My country is ranked most patriotic in the world, at 94%.
I’m part of the 6% who isn’t patriotic. I’m instead proud of THAT. Especially since we have an extreme football fandom that I’m really getting tired of being a part of, mostly due to the hooligans that resulted from this. After the last World Cup, I just stopped caring.
My mam has a union jack she flies outside her house. I always say “do you forget what country you live in?” To her all the time about it
Pride, like most emotions or feelings, exists on a range. You can be proud of all of these things, including your achievements; it’s the degree to which you carry that pride that determines the “douchebaggery,” don’t you think?
The sports team, I would say, probably has the lowest “douchebaggery threshold,” as the spectator is so far removed from the team—especially for professional teams—whereas the others carry more involvement and/or stake for its community.
Being proud of someone else makes you a douchebag?
Any pride which implies superiority over others is douchebaggery. Especially when based on exclusivity of group membership for things you didnt earn yourself. Or anything used to shame others.
Being proud you made yourself work out every day is good. Saying you are proud that you have a better body than most is douchbaggery. Being proud that your wife is hot is douchebaggery. Being proud that your city made the playoffs is douchebaggery. Being proud of yourself that you worked hard and are financially stable is fine, especvially if you keep it to yourself. Being proud that you are rich is douchebaggery.
Being proud of the price of your car is douchebaggery.Theres nuance there, I’ll leave it to you to figure it out. I think if your pride is intended to make others feel lesser then you can do better.
You are assuming having pride means you put down others accomplishments, but that’s not always the case. You can be a fan of a sports team and still not hate the opposing team.
Killing yourself is ok. You don’t know what it’s like to be them and be in their head.
I’ll never do it. Even in darkest depths, but respect anyone’s right to say peace out.
Agreed. The idea that you owe people your life is pretty nuts. At the end of the day, you can be robbed of everything, including your life. But it’s the one thing you’re not allowed to end. In a perfect world I do think that people who are suicidal should both:
(a) have to discuss their suicide with a trained professional. What does this look like? Idk. But probably along the lines of “are you capable of healing / can we heal what is causing these thoughts or no?”
(b) be able to get professional euthanasia. No pain, someone to be there with them through the process. Not just a sterile room where you go to die, but a place you are going to leave your pain behind and move on
If there is an afterlife, hopefully they find peace there.
Circumcision is multilation
I think that’s starting to come around, no?
What if it’s done with consent, to an adult?
The big thing is just not comparing it to female circumcision. Both are fucked up, but female circumcision is done explicitly to destroy sexual function. It’s rare for male circumcision to go so wrong that all sexual function is lost, but that’s the goal of female circumcision.
Male circumcision started in the usa explicitly to stop boys from masturbating. With Dr Kellogg’s goal a world of numb sex. All the health reason were either just the healthy effects of no masturbating or made after the fact.
And that not the oldest we have writings from the early Muslim world wwre someone wrote that we do so baby associates pain with his genitals. Amd thats not the oldest record explaining male cicr as an anti sex anti pleasure.
Stealing is OK, the ok-ness of the stealing is inversely proportional to the wealth of the person you steal from.
If you steal 100 dollars from someone who only has 1000 dollars, that’s reprehensible, but if you can nick a few million off a billionaire fucking go for it.
Robin Hood wasn’t portrayed as a villain.
Didn’t realize I felt exactly the same. Same goes for stores. If the local store screwed themselves in my favor, I’d likely say something. If the big box store fucked up? LOL, mine.
I think that was the generally agreed upon belief before capitalist propaganda changed our collective morality.
That just means all you have to do is come up with a justification and steal all you want for the most part and we as humans are very good at this sort of mental gymnastics. One might say that cognitive dissonance is one of our biggest super powers.
I think relative harm factors in too. Decimating someone’s resources when they’re likely to struggle to feed themselves next month? Or course that’s reprehensible. Taking a tiny portion from someone who won’t even notice, especially when you’ll probably get a lot more out of it? Now you’re practically Robin Hood
Yes but this is a very shallow view which ignores other consequences like moral order, trust and social landscapes.
Open borders. I strongly believe in open borders as a moral imperative. Human beings have been migrating for survival, resources, and exploration for over 20,000 years. The concept of nation-states imposing constraints on movement is a modern invention that doesn’t align with the inherent human need for freedom of mobility. People in the southwestern states of the US with Mexican roots will tell you “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.”
fellow border abolitionist! i recommend people to read Borders by Thomas King. Borders are not real. It’s past time for land back
This is a difficult concept for us “modern humans” to wrap our heads around so I get why some of the responses are “civilization would collapse”. But hear me out: We assume that most people in the so called “3rd world” (global south is a better term) actually want to migrate to the wealthier western nations. This is not entirely the case. In the majority of cases people do not want to uproot their families, leave everyone and everything they know behind, have to learn a foreign language and culture. Desperation is what mostly drives this decision!
What I am saying is if we had open borders in the first place migration would actually decrease because nation states would have to compete for human capital, ultimately raising the standards of living for everyone. That is different than what we do now, where nation states exploit people for their labor, do not provide for their basic needs, creating a class driven society where the elites (the one’s who do the exploiting) continue to rule for generation after generation, in many cases with impunity.
Comment I agree with: “If you have money, borders are basically open for you” - @tantalizer@lemmy.world
The proof of this is the Trump’s administration concept of the gold card, not to be confused with the green card. The gold card is for individuals who will invest at least $5 million in the US. They than can get a gold card with trump’s face on it and come in and out of the country whenever they please as if there are open borders for them. Link: Trumps Gold card
Comment I do not agree with: “If every border opened up and tons of people moved into Europe/USA and other wealthy countries they would inevitably collapse. Trust in the system would erode and it would all devolve into anarchy.” @LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
I think this is misguided. The rule of law and enforcement of it would not simply cease to be because of opening up of borders. This is exactly what the ruling elites conditioned society to think and it is baseless Hollywood type propaganda created to keep the working class fighting among themselves and under the boot of the ruling class. They want you to think this way because most people who immigrate to another country are honest hard working people and NOT criminals. What do hard working honest people want to do? They want to provide for their families the best quality of life possible. How does one achieve that? One cannot by his or herself, one needs to join the many in the form of working class unions. What would happen if we the working class people all joined unions? We make the Capitalists elites our bitch. We dictate the working conditions and we decide what is a fair wage. Do you see where I am going with this? THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS and the ruling elite minority could no longer exploit the working class majority.
Regarding the collapse of wealthy countries I was more thinking of the social securities like free healthcare, education, retirement, welfare etc. I don’t think the justice system will collapse and agree that that is right-wing propaganda. But I can see the first things I mentioned happening when there is an influx in people that do not immediately pay I to the system to finance it for others. This might not apply to the US where education and healthcare isn’t free to begin with, but in countries like Germany where it’s the case it might be more severe. On the other hand, the retirement system is already very strained in Germany as there are less and less young people to pay for the old ones that retired…
In the United States we do not have the social welfare system that Europe does. Our political class chooses to invest in the military and imperialist wars abroad instead of providing “free” college education or healthcare for our people. It’s not right and is a big reason that Bernie Sanders, the only socialist democrat in the US congress has become so popular, because he is constantly telling us that the richest country in the world has zero excuse not to provide those basic needs to its people.
I think that is another fallacy that the ruling class elites like to tell us: don’t let all those foreigners in or our healthcare and education system will collapse! Fear mongering is what this is. For example in the United States in the last decade undocumented immigrants have contributed roughly $200 Billion into the Social Security system of which they do not get to benefit from. Also, immigrants have contributed immensely to local economies, revitalizing entire forgotten manufacturing towns in the Midwest that have been destroyed by outsourcing of jobs to Asia for cheap labor. My point is a huge influx, which I don’t believe would happen anyway, would just contribute to the tax base because regardless of immigrant status in the US you pay taxes just by being another consumer. Social programs including healthcare and education would just adjust over time.
You know who actually is about to cause the collapse of our social security and medicare systems in the US? Elon Musk, Trump and their billionaire cronies who infiltrated government and NOT migrants coming over the border working the fields for $5 per hour.
Based on your comment it seems to me like you’re a German citizen. Let me give some unsolicited advice: Fight like hell to keep your social welfare programs! The news lately seems to be showing that Germany is re-militarizing and that may come at a cost just like in the USA they will try to claw money away from social programs to redirect to military spending. Fight like hell so you don’t become the capitalist wasteland the USA has become with ruling elites trying to privatize every program.
unpopular moral take: All religions are absurd cop outs and you should choose your own model for how to be a good person.
Hotter take: ban religion completely outside of religious facilities and private dwellings.
No iconography, no discussion, nothing. You can go into your temple and do whatever stupid shit you want, you can aid the poor if you want, but everything to do with your religion stays behind closed doors.
super redhot take: implement a lifelong exclusion for being around unattended kids for any priests that are caught pedophiling. Mandatory bright red wrist bracelet wearing for life. And exclusion from ever being a priest again.
Include any higher ups in the church who knew about it and didnt immediately report it to the state law enforcement. There should not be any second system of justice within the priesthood. They follow existing government laws around abuse of children or they are acting criminally, no exceptions. If the pedopriests take off the bracelet they report it immediately to law enforcement or they can face life in prison, still wearing the bracelet.
I think the bases of all religions are similar enough… Don’t be an asshole, don’t be selfish and help others in need, accept everyone, etc…
Problem is the people that actually follow religions (specially when it’s a big part of their life) are mostly assholes that don’t follow the basic dogmas they themselves preach.
Nope, not even close. It’s not even the basis of Christianity, and we associate that one with this message the most (for some reasons). If there is a basis that all religions share, it’s that unwavering notion that the religion in question is the right one, and every other is heresy and should be eliminated.
No that’s quite popular here, thanks for outing yourself as a bigot and welcome to my ever growing blocklist
I don’t know if it’s a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you’re dead, to just let people needlessly die.
And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he’s good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody’s life? Don’t most people believe the soul leaves the body? It’s just meat.
I’ve had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.
The only counterargument to it I can imagine is that in shit-backwards healthcare systems like US one, it will disincentivize bad doctors from saving your life. If you’re poor and your family can’t afford good lawyer, they don’t have a good reason to give 100% to save your life, when they can give it 80%, and then sell your organs for good profit.
It’s not an argument against compulsive organ donation, more of a one against shit healthcare systems, but still.Obviously I am not for the sale of organs. And in a system where everyone is a donor, waiting list will probably be much shorter giving people less incentive to try and acquire organs in unethical ways.
But you’re right of course, the system has to be robust and fair to not cause issues with it, though of course this is true for any system, not just organ donations.
A family member of mine used to take organs from Cytek, possible misspelling, to DFW airport for transport out of the country. It’s already a lucrative business.
in India, there is a religious group that believes/ed bodies should be donated to the sky. they laid out the bodies for the vultures to take them. The entire body would be picked clean in less than a day, going directly back to nature. Sadly most of the vultures are gone now, due to pharmaceuticals. Strangely vultures can consume cyanide and other crazy poisons, but not certain pharmaceuticals that help humans.
Have to admit I know basically nothing about vultures. Can’t say I’m surprised that another (sub?)species goes extinct due to humans. We seem to be very good at that.
it’s okay to tell billionaires to kill themselves
agreed. also its fine to be happy when bad people die. The world instantly becomes a better place, why shouldn’t we all throw a party?
including that Brian Thompson health care CEO asshole.
I treat all people with religious beliefs as members of a dormant terrorist cell.
They could be your nice neighbor with whom you can interact normally on a day-to-day basis, but in the end they all have compromised against logic and, in the right conditions, that is a terrible liability.
Sounds kinda mean
As a progressive Christian that has spent my entire life actively helping the poor, needy, and visitors to our lands may I say a full throated ‘fuck you’ to you and everyone like you.
Every time I see someone like you paint every theist with the same brush they dip for regressive protestants it makes my efforts to counter their vile spew that much more burdensome. But you do you. I guess. At some point I’m just going to stop trying bc I’m tired of being lumped together with the ‘god hates fags’ crowd.
I hope your childish bigotry is worth losing 1/3 of your allies
This is the kind of response I am used to: swearing due to offended identity, inherently divisive terminology like “our lands” and blaming for causing you to lose theist intestine wars.
Having tried a lot in the past, I know that a comment thread is not the place or modality to conduct a fruitful conversation with a Christian.
Being born a Catholic, I can tell you that epiphany came when I realized that all the good things I am sure you did do not need to bring with them the mark of a (made up) system of power: you own it yourself and the real animus driving your actions can be just a feeling of belonging to the human species at large, a species free to roam any land without the need to plant flags nor to feel attached to any place only to limit the potential of others and one’s own.
I have EDS and am medically angry nearly all of the time, it is in my fucking profile. It is a burden for me to mask my coms style and frankly anyone who expects it is too thin skinned to be worth talking to anyway. Using my response to justify your persistent bigotry is entirely you my friend and I can guarantee you that I am not like anyone you have ever spoken to before.
I too was born Catholic, Catechism and everything, and became an atheist at age 14, then an anti-theist at 20.
There is literally no argument you can make that I haven’t already made better
And at 30 I had an experience that profoundly changed my perspective and I abandoned my childish atheism and have been a gnostic Christian ever since.
Every one of my past arguments were laid bare for what they were: Justifications for me to continue to live a life that I desired, instead of the life my creator made me for.
I would truly enjoy a spirited debate with atheists, and I have tried to have such since before the internet had pictures, but sadly I haven’t found more than a clumsy shopkeeper’s handful of you that could maintain intellectual honesty for more than 3 posts.
Wait a second… gnostic like in Gnostic? I didn’t know it was still a thing. I thought they had you all killed by the other Christians in the 2nd century.
Not completely, there were holdouts in Ethiopia and Iraq but the writings survived and are only more applicable today.
Point of order: In my case the supposedly heretical sect label happened to apply but when most Christians use lowercase ‘g’ gnostic they are referring to the fact that they have certainty that God exists via inner secret knowledge.
While that does hold true for the myriad of sects labeled as ‘Gnostic’, there is a ton more conceptual dogma that is not considered true by most lowercase ‘g’ gnostics
Not that any of you heathens really care.
Death penalty is wrong. Also vengeance prison is wrong, VERY unpopular opinions. I can’t tell you how many people will full on yell at you if you say this in public. I think rehab prison is what should happen for any prisoner that isn’t in for murder one or rape, domestic abuse. Financial crimes? House arrest, monitored assets, no access to exploitable systems. Property crime? Make sure they have a legitimate job, parole, house arrest if serious, garnished wages. We could have the vast majority of prisoners on parole or house arrest and in treatment, or jobs programs and out prison population would be at a normal percentage compared to the rest of the world.
If you cannot cook yourself a basic meal (I’m talking boil water, dump a box of pasta in, cook it, strain it, then add red sauce from a jar level of basic), you have failed as a human being. An adult using the whole excuse of “I just can’t cook” is pathetic and inexcusable unless you have genuine mental incapacities that prevent you from learning a basic recipe and how to use a stovetop, especially now with access to the internet/videos teaching how to cook.
I can cook just fine, but I really prefer baking. With cooking you have to make sure you are there watching it the whole time. I love how with baking I can just mix it up in a bowl, pour it in a pan, and cook it for an hour in the oven.
I don’t know what value my comments adds to this discussion, just wanted to share my love of baking ig.
Hell yeah, I love to bake. I definitely prefer baking over cooking, though I do enjoy both. I usually make bagels or cookies, but I’m gonna try my hand at sourdough bread soon. What do you like to bake?
BUT I’M SO BUSY /s
Agreed, cooking edible food in the twenty first century is such a low bar, just follow a recipe and make sure nothing gets burnt and it is cooked through.
