how do you incentivize parents to make their kids not refuse education

'cus some kids will go to school but refuse to be educated in the process

''If a student is refusing education
You haven’t fixed the education system'' you said it was the parent's fault

Legalize all victimless crimes

Mfw injecting testosterone is a crime in 2018 only because of some faggots that watch baseball

fucken druggie cunt

@Deleted User the parents haven’t been educated on how to raise fucking children

So yes

I still see that as education

what is the way to 'raise fucking children'

That’s a question I could answer if I was educated on raising children

The way the last couple western generations have been known to do it is the wrong way

Even if I’m wrong in it being a huge factor relating to crime and education

I don’t think it’s controversial to see that that’s a big change we need going foreword

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

Should journalists that knowingly report false news stories lose their right to work in that field by law? If no, what should the response be?

depending on wha you define as "false news"

If any misunderstanding happened when reporting then little to no reprimanding should occur

no, it brushes the stroke too broad and the truth is a living thing not set in stone forever; all details about a particular subject don't immediately come out. In fact, I'm pretty sure we didn't find out why Elvis died until last year (he died in 1977)

rather than lose their right to work, reprimand their organization/workspace. solves a lot of problems

Problem is, the Legacy Media knowingly publishes false information, then retracts it later after the damage is done. They do it all the time to drum up outrage over the favored cause of the day.

It would be one thing if there were genuine inaccuracies, but generally speaking, the papers and cable news are more than happy to play fast and loose with the facts, then play coy afterwards.

of course they should (making emphasis in **KNOWINGLY**)

The problem is it'd be either very hard or flat out impossible to prove these people did it with that intention on the spot

Yeah, years later after the damage was already done

Lets take CNN blatantly lying on the primaries for example reporting estimates that were waaaaaaay off

Was it intentional? Was it not? No way to make sure

But even with this, it'd be worthy to see this enforced

Media should be controlled by the state.

If you're willing to take the risk of completely biased and censored news

all current news is biased and censored

Ofc, private media has the problem of yellow journalism
but with a free market system the more objective news outlets have the chance to thrive while public distrust obviously biased ones

the free market is doomed to be dominated by a single group

and what it most consumers distrust the group and stop buying their products?

that probably won’t happen, if the real world is anything to go by

maybe they will start listening to the same people called something different but that seems to be the extent of it

That would be impossible to enforce in a country like America without infringing on the First Amendment. Anyone can engage in the activities of the press. Write a blog, make a YouTube video, hell even tweet live from an event.Becoming a journalist has no legal requirements, or restrictions.

The best response to fake news, and those that create it, is simply to call it out. I archive shitty articles and when I do, I alway put their name on it, and the name of the news outlet. Over time companies and people become tainted by their actions. Think about CNN. That brand has been devastated in the past few years.

If anything should be done legally, maybe make slander and libel laws stronger.

the question didn’t say that the answer had to be constitutional

Yeah, but then why would you prefer a state-controlled media when this is virtually impossible instead of the latter when there's at least a chance in your hypothesis of an absolute monopoly?

I know. @Deleted User I just thought I’d comment about it in the context of the country I live in.

I mean if both are corrupt to the teeth and have control over the field, what makes you pick one over the other?

id prefer a state that wasnt corrupt