Same.
That's another thing. Parents often think "can I do this" and almost never "does the child need this". Most people who are ill-suited to parent would still be better for many children than the situations they're already in.
I've always held the view that it is reckless if people do that accidentally.
What's wrong with ~~being adopted~~ using a comparison? Also I don't really doubt anymore that you're a troll, considering this is the third removed Lemmy account you are someone else is using to try to make her look bad, and the hundredth something ban evading Reddit account to either mock her or do as you're doing right now, with the replies on the X accounts being nothing but this crud. I can see why someone like Leni would lose faith in humanity seeing you hijack the minds of so many people.
The only people I know who can't do that are robots. Makes me think of that one scene from I Robot with Sonny saying "I can't make masterpieces like humans" while instantly scribbling a picture of a riot into existence.
Feed them gotcha questions. Treat it as a mental exercise.
Isn't that just neutrality?
Edit: Oh you meant "no innocents in enemy territory". No, that's not valid.
That would be the best way to explain my definition. Though that is the reason why so much of this confuses me. For a self-proclaimed Marxist safe haven, if the people of Lemmy were encountered with controlled opposition, everyone seems like they'd be ill-prepared to know what they're looking at.
Someone should tell Simon Whistler that then, he's been using it in every two Brain Blaze episodes.
I can definitely confirm they're still mad. Even those who are banned from both places would rather ban evade on Lemmy a hundred times before considering doing it on Reddit.
There are parts of my country where, even though adoption traditionally costs lots of money and effort, I think if you are a child's in-loco-parentis for six months, you can automatically officialize your status as their caregiver, all without the traditional hurdles.