Hardeehar @ Hardeehar @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

44

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that the punishment should fit the crime.

The kid is a kid. Not innocent, but not deserving of the full weight of adult punishment.

Worse yet, could the child be an undiagnosed ND? You and I don't know. What if he is?

I agree, appropriate action should be taken. Just what exactly falls into that bucket though?

You can't put an 11 year old in jail for man slaughter (I would call it that, not murder). Juvi? I really am not qualified enough to know my ass from a hole in the ground here.

What do you think?

A bad seed? Trim the bad ones for the sake of the future?

Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?

My lord, you need some help.

This is a kid, it's an accident, a tragic one. He's going to need a psychiatrist his entire life. The punishment is he will live with it.

As if it's limited to westerners lol

Don't forget pathological problems like forgetfulness, dementia, and Alzheimer's. Scammers have no qualms with stealing from people with disabilities.

I mean technically, if it's a tube, the mouth is part of the basic physics brain process. As in, if you don't eat it, it won't be added to the calories. The decision to eat is a brain process, too.

We've got drugs that play with that decision.

Legionella

True love won't solve life's problems either, lol. Dysfunctional people will dysfunction. I say money, so that you can afford therapy.

That's terrible, bee-hive yourself, pls

Probably on par with how the other safety stuff in the country is. Bad, not talked about, and actively suppressed if discovered.

Let me help you

Cost more up front: yes, new stuff always does

Range is never real not even close: evidently tesla has been lying about range, but for the most part, if you use an AC in an electric vehicle the batteries die sooner...which is the same with ICE vehicles. Use more energy = deplete faster.

Expensive to replace: yes

Wear out sooner than ice engines? Oh I don't know about that. There's no moving parts in an electric car. No oil to change, timing belts, no yearly tightening. There's still tires, brake fluid, and a host of new issues though. But they do not wear out sooner than ICE vehicles.

Lack of charging stations: yes, a limited problem, but in my area there are tons of them and you also charge at home and work (work is free, so it's free gas)

Slow to charge? 10-15mins wait is really not a deal breaker, you're just making some extra time to use the bathroom and get coffee.

Useless on road trips: I personally just rented a full electric and did an 800 mile round trip. It was not that bad.

Range worse in winter: goes along with 'that's how batteries work'. Plan your trip.

It's better for environment to keep older car on the road? Hard NO. Older ICE cars are less efficient with gas, which uses more gas. Getting a newer more efficient ICE car is better for the environment.

Creating a battery is bad for the environment up front, but after that there's a very small impact over the lifetime usage of that battery.

On the other hand, creating an ICE engine is light on the environment, but through its lifetime pollutes. Way larger impact on the environment than the electric.

I like it, it's at the very least something to give the homeless there some dignity.

Is it the best solution? I don't think so.

Does it need close management so it doesn't turn into a slum? Yes.

But it's something.

I honestly want you to enumerate them because discussion helps and is an opportunity to progress the ideas. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean we shouldn't share the ideas. I enjoy discussion and I try hard to not be inflammatory or rude.

You should tell me where the "flags" are so I can look back and think on it.

To summarize:

1. The article discusses a CDC report about stats on children which includes adults, and discusses homicides of black inner city adolescents, and suicides of white adolelescents that are on the rise since the pandemic. The loss of life is terrible.
2. Self defense is a right, not a hobby. The potential loss of life is terrible.
3. Between #1 and #2, you and I have to navigate to find a solution that satisfies both of us.
4. We can agree that any life lost to anything is too much.

I wish you the best.

I'm sorry, but the ability to defend myself and my family isn't a hobby. It's what gave my mother the ability to fend off a guy with a knife last year. You want her to fight him off with her bare hands in the parking lot? I had a friend who was almost gang raped by three men in an alley. She now carries a giant gun in her purse and you want her defenseless?

Not everyone has the luxury of police around the corner or to see guns as a hobby like you do. Especially the population of "children" you're referring to. Let me shed some light for you.

The fact is that these stats aren't a majority school shootings. These homicides are male inner city black ADULT youth who are given the worst cards in life and they have gotten zero attention. This is gang violence politicized.

The pandemic hit this population hardest and the facts show it here. Look at deaths from ALL types of things and it's gone up in this particular minority population. It's disheartening because it's been like this for decades and people are thinking it would be solved if only you could remove the guns.

The appropriate response is (if you're not already) supporting programs and services that help people who are suffering from poverty and mental health illness. Not making my family and friends defenseless.

Edit - My mother wanted to add that she also peppered sprayed the guy the week before. He came back.

I've been calling it 10

Yeah, it's misleading. Especially considering the hot topic use of firearms.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, we can agree that data should be free of the organization present here. The discussion isn't helped by this interpretation of the interpretation and it surely needs helping.

I'm not arguing that though. I totally agree that any loss of life is wrong.

And the use of child in your context is different from the use of child in the context of this discussion.

I'm more interested right now in the obvious agenda.

I'm not saying that child death's aren't up or that we shouldn't do more to protect them but when citing data this way, I get the very strong feeling that it's being made to look worse than it is on purpose. The majority are from suicides and murder fatalities are extreme in the 18-19 year old bracket.

Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.

The dictionary defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. Or not having attained the age of legal majority.

It's similar to when a 10 year old gets shot by the police, and then the news conference later has the police referring the 10 year old victim as "a young man" instead of "the child". Does it not feel like they're trying to achieve something?

It's so weird to file 18 and 19 year olds under "children". Aren't 18+ already considered adults and their lifestyle is going to be more risky than an actual child in grade school?

If you kept it at actual "minors", I wonder how this data would look.

It's kind of like saying that car accidents are a major cause of death in children because they drive too fast.