Tbh, sounds like child labor to me even if it was "legal". Like school credit for hours on a construction job wtf? Like I thought maybe he was some how doing a metal working/machinist class and somehow got fucked up by a lathe or something, but Jesus fucking Christ, what are you gonna learn doing construction work?
I'm guessing the claims of cannabis potentially giving some people cancer, come from the estimated population of cannabis smokers, which is probably going to be lower than the current population of tobacco smokers, and then finding out how many people died from smoking(ignition based delivery systems that are basically what's to blame for cancer), and then just extrapolating from those two points that there's probably gonna be some extremely regular smokers of cannabis who've gotten cancer. Of course cannabis being WAY less addictive than nicotine means that the average cannabis smoker in general is still unlikely to develop cancer when compared to the average tobacco smoker, but the very exposure to smoke just increases your chance of developinng cancer anyways when compared to somebody who doesn't smoke anything.
Like I think it's just common sense. The other guy may have made a more specific point that is wrong though, idk, I just skimmed the convo
I'm guessing it's all estimated numbers from statistics. Personally, I'll always recommend dry herb vapes or just getting regular THC vapes from more reputable brands, or shit make your own vape liquid if you think you can do it on your own(although I hear this way can be risky).
Ehh that's fair. I guess I'm so used to the use of clarification questions(often ones that are asked in the most infuriating way possible) as a lead up to and reframing of a conversation into an area that it didn't originally start as, that I thought such actions that you took as equivalent to strawmanning.
He said that shrooms are safer. You thought the argument he made was that shrooms use would lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use. They aren't the same argument.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Can I get a quick rundown on UniversalMonk? What the hell did he do? Looking at his profile he does seem suspect, but aside from that, did he do something that really exposed him or something?
Lol, we should create a society of sorts along the lines of the original Bavarian Illuminati. Create a decentralized storage network and archive of knowledge and history. Create a list of important shit that needs to be archived, and delegate standardized chunks (let's say 5 or 10gb each chunk) of data that are to be downloaded by people. Anytime 5 or 10 people have downloaded a chunk, strike it off the list of priority archival and move onto the next chunk. For this to work, needs alot of people though.
Prep. Build community. To survive potential trying times. Keep your mouth shut when the fascists take power and figure out ways to erase your online presence.
Edit Addendum: Stock up on food and water. Stock up on vital medications, this of course is personalized to your needs. Saving up a bit of cash and maybe having a few ounces of silver coins probably wouldn't hurt. Gas generator or power station that can be charged with solar can be useful, lots of people like Jackery. Learn how to use a radio, baofengs are a great cheap start. Guns and ammunition if you trust yourself with it and aren't mentally ill. Training for firearms if you do get them.
I think it does ring true. I think you can also say that, in a way, feminism successes do come from patriarchy, that is to say-
It is built upon patriarchy, through the analysis, critique and solutions offered by feminists to it.
What you are critiquing is the hypocrisy and personal individual failings of feminists, which is valid, but is another problem entirely I feel.
Perhaps you are saying these hypocrises and personal individual failings affect alot more feminists than feminists themselves would like to admit? Or perhaps that these hypocrises and personal individual failings have poisoned feminism and it's touted ideals? That feminists who fail in these ways affect the ideology of feminism and that THIS feminism, the "feminism of hypocrites" is what now pervades majority feminist thought?
The expectations the feminists have, are a part of the patriarchy, is what I'm guessing they're trying to say, so it's ultimately still the fault of broader patriarchy and it's standards. I guess what you're effectively saying is that Feminists are affected by patriarchy and it's standards too I guess, which is obvious given they're human and most humans aren't perfect.
Edit Addendum: I also think why it's hard sometimes for some feminists to acknowledge the problems men face, under the standards that the social system and hierarchy that patriarchy sets and is, is that men often play such a big role in the preservation and continuation of patriarchy, that the idea of even talking about or blaming some women(the gender which has faced the biggest brunt of the abuse from patriarchy) for also upholding the system of patriarchy, gets hard. It feels almost as if you were victim blaming or punching down, even though such aspects of patriarchy(that is the idea of women's role in upholding the continuation of it) must be addressed.
I think the term is private vs state militias, and with this article being about armed militias, we are talking about armed private vs armed state militias. I think technically all 50 states have laws on the books that prohobit various forms of private armed militia activity. Is it enforceable? Maybe, but that would maybe probably cause a nation wide incident given the amount of violence these groups can wield (though they would probably still lose against any organized state militias or any official state/federal military force), as well as increase the chance of a homegrown insurgency popping up. That's just my armchair opinion or thought about it though, I'm just armchairing here.
Lol, civil war then? Imagine trying to arrest the ones with the guns. I'd imagine a big, although still a minority, chunk of troops would immediately defect and form an insurgency under such actions.
Sigh, the settlement won't cover much of the rebuild, which is supposedly estimated to be around 1.9 billon, nearly 2 billion.