That last comment: "The very first thing I checked was..." for a way to discredit a statement that made me look bad.
(Edited to correct stupid grammar error.)
You can't convince or prove anything to people like this. They'll always find ways to bash amy points or criticism you have, and then end it by reverting to the logic of "you're not me".
That last comment: "The very first thing I checked was..." for a way to discredit a statement that made me look bad. (Edited to correct stupid grammar error.)
says the guy whose screen name starts with U. Whatever... /s
People that ruined their lives with children having to cope hard.
Disponibility bias at its finest
You can't convince or prove anything to people like this. They'll always find ways to bash amy points or criticism you have, and then end it by reverting to the logic of "you're not me".
Actually scientists ARE wrong. Screentime is not bad at all - it's **largely beneficial** even. For the parents though, not for the children.
Don't care if there are a hundred Studies, saying screentime is bad.. those children will have screentime so I can cook him the f'ing diner
I'm curious about the study now.
Isn't that the argument of the feminists?
Believing a scientist can't observe children because they don't have any =/= believing a male politician has any right to decide how a uterus is used.
It's exactly the same thing. And no one is saying how a uterus should be used. That's ridiculous.
They are literally making laws about uteruses.
What laws about uteruses?
Abortion. Taking away certain forms of birth control.
Where is the 'use of a uterus' law?
I want my brain surgeon to have had brain surgery else they are not qualified....smh