𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

also giving infants 70 shots is insane

Yoi’re right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don’t make money off of healthy people.

This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn’t cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you’ve essentially monopolised a disease.

This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we’ve found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

RFK is right

He’s wrong.

Nothing lasts forever. But for now, it’s decent enough.

I haven’t found a story that doesn’t use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn’t responded.

So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom’s side of the ordeal.

Virality and outrage don’t make a story more accurate.

We don’t know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don’t know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem “off” in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?

Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?

I’ll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child’s safety.

Johnson’s position on Ukraine is one of the few things where he did in fact show some strong leadership. Couldn’t fault him for that.

He failed in a lot of other areas unfortunately.

Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it’s much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.

I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.

They are pedophiles. I know it’s a wild thing to state but I don’t like pedophiles.

This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn’t harmed a child hasn’t caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn’t always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.

I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What’s wrong with preventing child abuse?

Do you have any research that backs this up? Because there is research that claims the opposite and that this can work as a preventative measure.

Morality is a product of civilisation and community. It’s the ability of groups to decide on a single set of rules by which they would lime to be treated by, as breach of those rules can cause physical or emotional harm. And then there’s simple evolution, where certain “moral rules” allowed civilisations to survive and thrive better than others.

At no point is “god” required here.

LinEUx

That’s not true. Infinite doesn’t mean “all”. There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them are 2. There’s a high statistical probability, sure, but it’s not necessarily 100%.

Currencies going up in value tends to not be great for an economy, as people will save instead of spend. It stops being a currency and becomes somewhat of an asset. A slowly depreciating currency tends to foster the most economic growth.

Our company has directly profited from a competitor that leaked sensitive data, because some of their large corporate customers decided to switch to us.

Business don’t like being on the receiving end of a data leak either you know.

I think you’re being too pessimistic about IT security, particularly in the Financial sector. A lot of the security rules and audits aren’t even government-run, it’s the sector regulating itself. And trust me, they are pretty thorough and quite nitpicky about stuff.

The cost of failing an audit also often isn’t even a fine, it’s direct exclusion from a payment scheme. Basically, do it right or don’t do it at all. Given that that is a strict requirement for staying in business, most of these companies will have sufficiently invested in IT security.

Of course it’s not airtight, no system really is. But particularly in the financial sector most companies really do have their IT security in order.

That’s not entirely true. In order to be allowed to keep processing transactions you have to adhere to strict rules which do get regularly audited. And then there’s the whole “customers will switch to another more reliable party in case of outages or security problems”. And trust me, I’ve seen first-hand that they do.

Not Tesla though, it relies on cameras only.

Am I sure about what? That men vastly outnumber women when it comes to commiting rape/sexual assault/abuse? Umm… Yeah?

No I was referring to the publicity thing. When a man does it it’s not as big of a news story vs when a woman does it, as I believe to be anecdotally evidenced by the news stories I mentioned.

You sure? I remember reading a string of articles along the lines of “female teacher sentenced for sex with boy in her class”, which rather disgustingly tended to attract a lot of “nice” and “I wish I was the boy” like comments.

Doesn’t higher interests mean more money is spent paying those interests, meaning less money is available to spend on other things which in turn reduces the monetary supply in circulation which curbs inflation?

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.