So do these same prisons not have heat in the winter?

it's not like they have to set the thermostat to 72F... even set to 85F will prevent people from heat stroke.

at a bare minimum, should be at least 1 housing section that has AC for any of those prisoners who have the mentioned high-risk medical conditions.

Yeah, because parents are never up to no good....and moronic criminals never record their crimes.
🤦‍♂️

Legitimate to worry, not legitimate to take it upon yourself to test it. I'm worried about my money in the bank, it's not legitimate for me to break into the vault to see how easy it is. Duh.

What?! How would the school not having funding to increase security in any way excuse her going to great lengths putting all other students at risk? It would be worse, because she would be going in knowing they CAN'T increase security because they can't afford to.

You are free to assume this person had only perfectly pure motives (just as others are free to assume she was going to kidnap a child for a sex slave while disguised as another child in a mask and hoodie), but that doesn't change the fact that she surreptitiously snuck into the school with no authorization or authority to do so. Her motives might be above board, her actions aren't even close. The proverbial road to Hell is what you think excuses her illegal actions.
Edit:You seem to be suggesting we prosecute thought crimes only....If I intend to commit a crime but don't intend to do harm, no foul, but if I wish to do harm but take no action, lock me up. That's not American or reasonable without a perfect mind reading machine. We prosecute actions, and her outrageous trespass was definitely illegal.

Would you be fine with me, or any random citizen "testing" the security of your home when only your children are there? What if I dress like their friend? Gee....why not? Don't you think the other parents have the right to not have adults constantly trying to be in their schools disguised as kids under masks?

I’m wondering what her solution might be....starting school an hour early so every student can be fully screened before entering a completely closed and sealed campus? Incredibly harsh sentencing for those caught trespassing?

Did she consider the repercussions for her daughter, who was clearly complicit with her criminal plan to expose lax security? Expulsion is a real possibility.

She did prove security is lacking, but was there really any question? Everything is lacking in public schools. Now everyone knows just how easy it is to go unnoticed in schools, does that make the children safer or at higher risk?

Now it’s time for her to pay the price....it should be high as a very public example of what happens to trespassers.

What a maroon.

Says who though? That's a narrative, fed from the media, tightly controlled by the CCP. Yes, people's lives are in general getting better materially. But people knows they have little freedom to criticize the government in public, but that doesn't mean it's "part of the bargain." There's just no means to disagree with the CCP without risking life & limbs. But those that got treated so badly that they felt there's nothing left to lose? Oh they do "rise up", whether you can hear about it, that's another matter entirely.

Chinese (as a whole people) don't "rise up (at least enough)" beause they see the financial benefit of China's explosive growth, and in general, you won't get into the CCP radar/ire if you're a regular citizen just going on your day. But the vast majority of Chinese knows they're far from catching up to anywhere near the G7/10 standard. So their focus is on that (the financial end), not toppling the CCP. They're more pragmatists than idealists.

Make no mistake, the G7 is ALSO part of the problem by enabling the CCP due of the immense financial gains and just pay lip service to "human right abuses" in China to score domestic points.

The Chinese (and the CCP) saw what happened to the U.S.S.R. and they don't want the "Western world" to "rescue" them. As they know the one thing the Western World does best is Abandonment.

wonder what the 'industry' thinks in this regard. also leery about how the 'Nannie state' believers would consider this: Nannie over nuthin' or nothing Nannie about unnecessary risks?

it is disturbing. just the tangle of extension cord thing shows how institutionalized this fear, or known risk, has been installed into the public. would reasonably assume this is traceable to having been taught in schools. echoed also in many ads, manuals, etc. although have difficulty understanding why putting inexpensive safeguards would be a bad thing?

but have always believed it's easier to change systems than people. am joining the Nanny crowd.

[also think BSR's advice is worth noting. maybe when the speaker starts in w/the technical jargon, a smaller window opens with a 'normal' person translating the message. i.e. "wire gets damn hot" or "could shock the crap outta yah". maybe not so perfectly clear, but succinct and truthful.]

It's < 1 in a million chance of dying from CVST complication, but it's still not "zero deaths". (the number of "breakthrough" cases of covid leading to death were still higher)
---

Not sure where you got those car stats - annual fatalities peaked in 1972 at around 55,000 per year and have been declining since (under 40k in 2019).
So ~10x more covid-related deaths in US.

Injuries are around 4M a year (2017) and I couldn't find a source that distinguished maiming vs other injury. This infographic said 2M "permanent injuries" per year. (older 2010 data, from what I can tell)

And I bet most of these car accidents are caused by the same aggressive tailgating coal-rolling drivers who are more likely to be anti-vaxxers as well.

any medicine, procedure, or vaccine carries risk. no guarantees, just probabilities. and the blood clotting risk is - what? greater than 1 in a million?

love to have those odds...say a million to one that Scarlett Johansson would reject an improper advance versus one in a million to ever suffer an immediate reprisal.

it'd be worth a shot.

more concerned that not enough citizens will help get the population up to the point of herd immunity. the consequences of that maybe become a catastrophe.

BTW: 1 in 5 chance, of any american car passenger, over their span of life, will be killed or maimed for life. is this worth the risk? doubt many ever give it a concern.

Also, he didn't address the AstraZeneca pause in EU and elsewhere after the blood clot deaths. (link was found, just the EMA announced that due to the extreme rarity, the benefits outweigh the risks). But that also makes John's "zero deaths" from vaccines statement false (maybe he was only counting Pfizer/Moderna/J&J ?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56620646

owow, i get to actually argue because i don't have to simply correct facts??!? WHAT?!?


Oh you!


You DO care.



I wish you included sources for these quotes? best i can tell is it's from my link?


Whatever, look, give this man a badge. He posted something with ONLY factual data and then even separated his opinion from that. Right on dude.


-----------------
-----------------


Now, about the arguments themselves and your opinion, idk man. Look. You can't cherry pick this data like that. THAT is dishonest. Have you ever considered that most of this data come from a period in time where MOST schools were not physically in session? A time period where parents were being more cautious?


And yes, kids are of course less likely to die from this? DURRRRRR they are less likely to die from everything compared to a septuagenarian.

That's not the point you fucking dumbass
https://www.goerie.com/story/news/coronavirus/2021/04/20/covid-19-daily-update-coronavirus-cases-erie-county/7298744002/

Kids get it, kids spread it. Schools being closed stopped more spread than you can imagine.


But let me say that again.

Kids
get
it.

Kids
spread
it.


You know any dumb-asses that don't want to get vaccinated because BLAH BALH BLAH BULLSHIT BLAH BLAH BLAH fucking duckspeak. ie no good reason? Those people are at risk and more importantly,

THE MORE THIS KEEPS SPREADING THE MORE CHANCES EXIST FOR MUTATION THAT SIDESTEPS CURRENT PREVENTION OR CURRENT VACCINES - and then we are REALLY fucked.

But... but... Republicans will say they look ugly under the ocean! Just like Trump said Wind mills are eyesores!

Back to the science of it. I wonder how much energy these oscillating plates can generate Wh? Their movements don't seem to be that much. Factor in the construction cost, damage/maintenance from salt water erosion, large fish bumping into it, the weather, etc. It might be feasible for small island communities/nations, but countries with a large landmass to coastal access ratio... its contribution to the overall energy sector might not be that significant. But every little bit of renewable, environmental risk-free energy helps, so, good stuff!

Yes, they had isolation we don't, but also had fewer resources to work with by far, and are much closer to the outbreak in China with tons of travel between countries. I would say having a reasonable, thoughtful population that wanted to avoid being someone who spread the virus and killed people, so followed instructions nearly without exception, compared to the U.S. who had a leader denouncing closings, masks, and social distancing and a population that was happy to spread the disease for political reasons. I think that has WAY more to do with our horrific , worst on the planet per capita despite the most resources by far outcome.

We only have two borders to close. Canada is easy, just ask nicely and they'll stay home. The border with Mexico is a problem, granted, I found it odd Trump didn't use emergency powers to finish his fence when he had a legitimate reason, but that would mean admitting Covid is dangerous, but if we cooperated with Mexico to secure the border we could have minimized all international travel early.

Back to Canada, with two open borders. They have 23000 and a population of 37.59 million, so they also have a per capita death rate well under 1/2 ours, close to 1/3, and they also could have done better if we had done better. It's impossible to figure out what percentage of their infections came from the U.S., but it's definitely a significant number.

Other nations have divisions, if not states, provinces, prefecture, or some other separation of areas. I don't agree that because we have states in our country we are like the EU, because a federal law or executive order covers all states and territories, the EU has no such mechanism as far as I know.

We were the only nation with an international Global Health Security and Biodefense unit, with teams in China and elsewhere, designed to identify new diseases early to avoid pandemics. Trump is totally responsible for dismantling that office, meaning there's a likelihood every non Chinese death and most Chinese deaths would have been avoided had Trump not been butt hurt over a good system set up by Obama. His racist and political hatred put the planet at risk. That alone puts most deaths, U.S. and global, directly on his hands.

Also, the EU population is double ours, meaning with all the multiple open borders and haphazard mix of regulations from different countries, and the enormous immigrant populations, and some actual temporary lockdowns in some of their countries (but not all by far) their infection/death rates are barely over 1/2 what ours are per capita. That's not on par, sorry.

Some of their leaders have some blood on their hands because of poor or slow decisions, but few actually fought against all science and public health measures, denying the mortality rates and doctor's recommendations to convince their populations to do nothing at all to mitigate the pandemic...Brazil did....look at them now. Yes, the president of Brazil absolutely has blood on his hands, and his response mirrored Trump's.

Outside in team groups when not running, not socially distanced, and it's state law. Masks required.

Edit: I would agree about wearing them during events if they weren't in close contact during the events, breathing hard and exhaling spit, but they are.

Firing the coach is correct, taking the law into his own hands and putting other people at risk because he disagrees with the law and school rules is what you have said deserves prison time and/or firing.....when it's black people breaking them.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade