Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,239

Joined

2 yr. ago

By what leap of logic do you come to that conclusion. We are talking about entertainment here. Not housing or food. Doing without is an option, and there is plenty of competition to use instead.
People rail against the rich for caring only about money. But when they make thier own decisions, they do the same. Money first. You pay for ADs with your time first. Then you pay again when ever you buy anything, because advertising whether you saw it or not is part of the price of everything. Paying for your time back alone, would be worth the price. But people put money first. And we all lose. Well except the wealthy.

I will call that a grey area. You still count on the roles as a sub of the ad tier. And probably in all the data it assumes you saw the ads. So it helps perpetuate the problem. But if enough people do it, it will reduce whar advertisers pay, which might reduce the problem.

94 million people decided $10 a month savings was worth watching ads rather than doing without. Fuck em. They are the reason many things only have an ad supported tier. Pay for stuff or pirate it, but don't use ad supported tiers when you have a choice.

What we really need is the gangs to step in and protect thier territory from ICE. They have networks of people who can hide them if they get identified. And good luck to the agents who come and try to arrest them. The cycle will just build and build.

Plot twist. He has a face like brad pit and was sick of it beingbthe first thing anyone says when they talk to him.

You can get a badge at the dollar store. Id, not so much. The ID has thier picture on it so that you know it is thiers. The badge... not so much. Most of us have decent idea what out state ID looks like. Maybe not enough to spot a decent forgery, but far better than a police badge which can be different. You have town, city, county, and state leos. And the all the feds. They simply are not the same thing at all.

Usually if it is common, both are true. The population is about 51% women and 49% men. For one man to have 4 wives that usually means 2 or more men have no wives. So, guess who gets the ladies. The ruling class. Not coincidentally, such areas are where you can often get suicide bombers. Especially if your religion promises the 40 virgins in the next life. The drive to have sex is generally the most powerful motivator there is.

I agree it was for show. But question. You say the seal is absolute and protected by law and the constitution. That seems odd. Any source on that. I totally buy that case law has upheld it. But plenty of case law is beyond the actual written law. And since the constitution covered the separation of church and state, guaranteeing a specific part of a specific religion like confession seems out of place. Though it was common to all the religions they cared about, so they might have.

The comment that started this thread said ID or warrant. A badge is far from either. And apparently from other sources, in most states they don't have to give you thier badge number or name. Seems a few states have a law saying they do, but only a few.

Certainly not. A cop can direct you to get out of a car without a warrant, and you are required to comply. And plenty of even simpler situations.

On the second point, many priests are good people. And they may follow the law simply gecause it exists. So the law could have some impact.

A curious question. Why isn't everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?

So it was unclear to me from the article if it simply made priests mandatory reporters or if it went further. My understanding is that mandatory reporters don't have to report past occurrences specifically. They only havecto report if it is currently happening or they suspect going to happen. If that is the case, it should be fine. Confession isn't about what you are going to do.

The same line of reasoning applies to mental health professionals. But even more so since a judge can order mental health care, but not confession. So why is it considered in one case to keep the avenue open, but not the other?

I'm curious. Do they have toshow it to bystanders? To the person they are arresting sure. And I would think to family of that person... but maybe not. I doubt they have to show it to randos on the street. But, I think it is safe to assume they didn't have it. Even if they did, thier history means they have blown any credibility on that front. As for ID. I do wonder about that. Anyone know the actual laws?

I dunno. The kind of macho person who becomes a cop isn't likely to respond to vigilantes killing cops by looking inside to fix the problem. They seem more likely to ask for more powers and such to go after potential vigilantes and such. The union leaders aren't dumb people. Just power hungry and more loyal than sensible. They know they can't change current bad cops into good cops. And they know if they try to get rid of the bad cops they will reduce thier power and influence as the will represent less people, and collect less in union dues. They just have no motivation to improve quality. And killing indiscriminately will only give them more influence through sympathy and outrage. I don’t know how we motivate them though. Probably financially. Maybe somehow make the union pay a portion of every settlement or something.

Social media really changed the playing field. It is much easier to inundate people with messaging and such that will fool a much greater part of the population. Yet the system hasn't adjusted.

I agree that "wisdom cannot flourish when we indulge foolishness." So we need to change the system so that it does not indulge foolishness.

Yeah, this one is on congress. They had it up for a vote, and it went 49-49. That was about tarrifs, but it was the same idea as limiting the "emergency"

For me, killing a cop indiscriminately is not okay. A dirty cop, I will say ok assuming the punishment fits the crime. The problem you describe is caused by poloticians, union leaders, and the legal system. They are the ones that should be "pressured" to affect change.