IzzyScissor @ IzzyScissor @lemmy.world

Taking a mental health break

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

414

Joined

2 yr. ago

Keep reading.

The auto company [Tesla] had 5.6 fatal accidents per billion miles traveled by its vehicles, narrowly edging out Kia, with 5.5 per billion miles, as the brand with the overall highest rate of deadly accidents.

The simpler the 'fact', the more likely it is to be an oversimplification and largely untrue.

In this example, you have to overlook any time someone became pregnant without consent. They never chose it to begin with, so blaming them for "not taking responsibility" for something they never wanted is oversimplifying a complicated subject to the point of falsehood.

It's also especially funny how often this argument comes from people who, in the same breath, will talk about their savior being "of virgin birth". You can't argue that chastity works for everyone when it didn't work for Mary.

A few weeks ago, I'd have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes.. We'll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?

We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we'll ever get to try something like this because that's how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they're doing successfully you don't want to spoil?

It's "moo".

Oh, I'm all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I'm sure these two would start a good one if allowed.

Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone's guess..

Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that's also the most time we'll ever have.

It's probably assuming that you're also getting fries, a drink and an ice cream cone each or something. That simply cannot be enough.

Because there's no "wrong" answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

I still have hope... just not for America. I can make somewhere else better.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on "gun bans", even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don't change, only the public perception of them.

It's like if they showed people a new study for "Earth gravity" vs "Moon gravity" and act surprised when people don't immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn't be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single "study" presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone's perspective on a subject, especially if that "study" presents "facts" that are contradictory to the listener's previous knowledge.

Humans aren't rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn't have much of an opinion to begin with.

The difference is between cursing and cursing AT someone.

"The garage door broke." "Ah, fuck." - Fine "You fuck." - Not acceptable

If you get a written warning, it's probably time to start looking for a new job regardless.

I remember getting a hand-me-down digital 'black book' to store phone numbers during the age of the palm pilot. It had a 'dial' button and a speaker on the back. You could pick up the phone, put the speaker against the phone's mouthpiece and it would 'dial' by playing the correct tones. Blew. My. Mind.

That depends. Do you want them to learn, or do you want to feel superior to them?

"If you're trapped and can't figure out how to escape the trap by yourself, you deserve to be trapped?"

Is that really what you're saying here?

Which part? The spoiler tag is working on my client. Or did you mean the content?

"What does cyanide have to do with eating to survive?" It doesn't - exactly like eating meat. You don't need either to survive, and both are completely "natural".

By saying that "partaking in natural things should be free from judgement", you're also arguing that we shouldn't judge someone when they commit murder, rape, incest, and a whole slew of morally objectionable things because those things happen to also exist in nature.

If you meant that, you're too far gone to have a reasonable conversation. If that's not what you meant, then you need to rephrase your argument because "natural" does not mean "good".

Being "natural" is not an indicator of "good" or "bad".

Cyanide is natural. Eyeglasses are unnatural.

Maybe pick better metrics for society.

My math teacher (at a private school) was just a random students' mom. She had no higher degree and only taught the book. If you got the right answer by using a method not included in the book, it was marked half-credit because she didn't understand and wasn't interested in hearing your logic, because "that's not what the book says".

Being taught by people who have no drive for knowledge and just want to teach the standardized test answers SUCKS.

That makes sense. This church was 'non-denominational', which meant that if they could just have the church band play a jam session and still make money, they would.