Simply put, it’s sleezy. I wouldn’t want to hang around someone like that. Titillating anime pictures are on the spectrum of a mechanic’s skimpy calendar. They’ve prioritised sexual gratification over social decorum, which the choice in of itself, I feel would make women uncomfortable. What kind of guy does that?

There’s clearly a limit here, I’m sure you’d agree, perhaps your line is simply further back. Hardcore pornography is probably out, no? A fleshlight? A poster celebrating 9/11? Any number of these things wouldn’t interfere with my ability to work, but I certainly wouldn’t want to go near that person. You come to work to work, not to get a horn on.

Gives me the ick, like some guy with a pornstar poster. If you can’t even go to work without having a sexualised image constantly in your eye line, you need to work on your priorities.

Got WAY TOO drunk at a club, kicked out (which I genuinely accepted with good grace). Walking home, realised I’d forgotten my jacket. Figured I’d just nip in past the bouncer, grab the jacket and leave without bothering anyone. I didn’t nip past. I got bounced. Rebuffed from the club, and pushed backwards I fell over and broke my foot (a Jones fracture). Was in a moon boot for 3 months or so, but now it hurts whenever I walk wrong.

I have two kinds of tinnitus, the classic high pitched ringing that if I pay too much attention can swell like an orchestra, and a newer weirder kind, a low rumble that sounds like a diesel engine is in my driveway that never drives off.

My brother convinced me not to, as Coles and Woolworths are often franchised by families. Head office takes their cut regardless, whatever you steal comes out of the franchise owners wallet. Happy to be proven wrong as I’d love to knick from em.

Our PT system (Melbourne Australia) is privately owned and costs $5 each way. Consider not paying and paying a fine if caught - it often works out cheaper. Fines are $200, and I’ve only had my ticket checked maybe 4 times in 6 years. Odds are good!

Refrigerate your mangos before eating! So much nicer than a lukewarm mango.

It sounds like your morals are beholden to whatever reprehensible things are allowed by the government, if you are competitively incentivised. If slavery became legalised today, would you buy yourself some slaves to make sure you’re keeping up with the Jonese’s? Just because the government allows you to negatively gear and buy stacks of houses off of an initial investment, depriving others of their first home - solely because you legally can - doesn’t mean you have to, or should. This opulence of multiple home ownership, where you literally charge your tenants more than your mortgage costs, profiteering during a housing crisis, is really reprehensible. Look, I’m sure if we were at the pub together we’d have a great time, but buddy, you’re objectively an immoral person.

Being complicit in the system is what props it up. If everyone acted like my partner and I, there would be no housing crisis. Your “the system is broken so I might as well take advantage” mindset is the cornerstone of so much wrong in this planet. It’s why slavery existed, it’s why factory farming exists, it’s why child sweat shops still operate, it’s why global warming runs rampant. Your hamburger analogy also isn’t very applicable. A hamburger salesman provides me with a product that I choose to occasionally enjoy. If hamburgerlords suddenly bought up every hamburger and started scalping them, I’d go without hamburgers. Whereas you’ve used your wealth to scalp houses, something people can’t go without.

The Mrs and I have agreed we’ll never buy and rent out an investment property, even if it makes financial sense.

To fight with other investors over someone else’s first home to boulster my own portfolio and then harvest other people’s wages because I had a higher initial deposit seems dirty to me.

I refuse to pull the ladder up behind me if and when we can buy our first home.

OP can’t inb4

They’re putting on a live stage version of it in London next year, I’m travelling from Australia to see it.

I ate the beans, then put the batteries in the bean can.

A spooky thing to say in front of a chicken.

In an old tin of beans, minus the beans.

Aye carumba

There is no “within reason” for child abuse.

The vast vast majority of scientific research proves that hitting children only results in negative outcomes, not only in child development, but it’s constantly shown to not reduce the undesired behaviour.

If a child can’t be reasoned with for why it’s actions were wrong, they can’t reason why their loving parent strikes them.

If you choose to ignore what’s essentially scientific fact and continue hitting children, then the adage “I was hit as a kid and I turned out okay” might be plain wrong.

Furthermore, suggesting that an action is okay because the child “turned out fine” can be used to justify any objectionable behaviour. “I was molested and I turned out okay, therefore molestation is justifiable”. If your child did indeed turn out okay, that is despite you choosing to assault them, as ALL research shows you were in the wrong.

There’s more than two choices here for you and your father that don’t boil down to logic puzzles or child abuse.

It sounds like his heart was in the right place, but without understanding your mental capabilities.

At that ages, punishments need to be clearly established and actionable. The child is behaving badly, the parent demonstrates "if you keep doing that, you’ll lose out on (Xbox, free time, family game night etc etc), then following through. If that fails, then removing the child to isolate for a while. Once they’ve calmed down, then following through with the aforementioned punishment.

Your father’s punishments would probably start working around 9-10 years old according to research.

Finally, the “I got hit and I turned out okay” is terrible logic. That justifies any behaviour that someone can survive through. Just glance at the research to see why smacking is a wholly negative ordeal with no upsides for the child.

I’ll start with the wholly negative effects of hitting children, specifically the section on Effects on Behaviour and Development. Time and time again, scientific studies prove there is literally no benefit to hitting children, with only poor outcomes.

My understanding is the most effective means of punishment involve first establishing an environment of rich support and love for the child. Then when there’s poor behaviour, short time outs.

You remember that episode of The Simpsons when Bart steals the game cartridge, and what upsets him most is Marge’s total loss of attention?

A secondary strong punishment is removal of positives, like revoking video game access etc.

It’s hard to critique whatever parents you mention without knowing specifics, but it often comes down to:

• Poor follow through, with parents threatening punishment but rarely enacting
• Limited positive attention given to the child, likely due to “no time”
• Poor communication of reward/punishment system, or poorly established system.

Finally, sometimes children and just little shits with bad temperament. It’s vital to understand that countless studies show physical abuse does not result in corrective behaviour, with only negative developmental outcomes.

Smacking children and how it literally has no benefit to the child whatsoever, and makes you a bad parent if you still do it.

I used to be a strong supporter of smacking kids, I even signed a government petition to revoke the NZ anti-smacking bill, but after studying it at uni and then keeping abreast of the research afterwards, it has only negative effects, and yet bad parents still defend it.

Hard to talk about because people get weirdly defensive even when there’s NO evidence that smacking kids is either beneficial or effective.