blackbelt352 @ blackbelt352 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

450

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ok

I'm saying that this should be compared by amounts of alcohol vs. amounts of caffeine, and then arbitrated somehow (say, "x grams of caffeine should be equivalent to x grams of alcohol").

Please point out in the original post where anyone was talking about caffiene vs ethanol. The original poster said they gut instinct felt that people drink more alcohol than coffee, I provided a statistical source that contradicted that gut feeling about coffee vs alcohol. Now we've spiraled into some asinine overly complex "well we should calculate how much caffiene is in ever single cup of coffee because coffee has different form factos and calculate how much ethanol is in every single glass of alcohol because alcohol has different form factos and then normalize them against each other because they have different effects" that no statistician would ever dream of trying to attempt.

This is at best a bad faith argument of you trying to show how massive your brain is to strangers on the internet by being a contrarian dickhead.

Oh so like how there's an ISO standard for determining caffiene content for use when maming comparisons: https://www.iso.org/standard/34185.html

And the Standard Drink for alcohol: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_drink

You're splitting hairs and retreading ground that has already be standardized years ago and continually receives updates to maintain relevance.

We can argue over how to finesse the numbers to most perfectly represent the statistics until we're blue in the face, but it's really not that necessary to make it that complicated. Besides 1 serving of coffee is a pretty well established quantity, and 1 serving of alcohol is also a well established quantity. That semantic argument has already been had and settled years ago so that everyone compiling numbers and taking statistics are all operating on the same page.

Because it was just the fastest data source I could find. I was simply looking for any counter example. The point wasn't strictly about the consumption of coffee vs alcohol, it was that there is an entire internet available to confirm or debunk a gut feeling.

So if you're going to go into a discussion about public policy, back it up with facts and figures, not gut feelings.

Or we can go with statistics instead of gut reaction.

https://usafacts.org/data-projects/beverages

In the US it's coffee by a wide margin.

For just about any other crime I'd tend to agree with the sentiment, but for nearly any other crime I can come up with some hypothetical scenario where that crime is justifiable, where I can comprehend the reasoning behind the act.

I can't come up with any hypothetical where rape or sexual assault is justifiable.

Devoting 10 years of his life to the constitution does not automatically mean he will interpret it in good faith and not push a personal/organization agenda, COUGHFederalistSocietyCOUGH

The only thing that comes to my mind would be tipped service staff not reporting tips as income.

And written by a Socialist

Exactly this. People often use "female" because it's a dehumanizing word.

We should give the aid, but all of it through federal channels. Like just completely bypass desantis, send FEMA in and set up themselves. Help the people, not their governor.

You're just going to ignore the Canadian support for the Allies during WW2? They were a significant portion of the Invasion of Normandy and helped push all the way to Germany.

Not the responses themselves but the methodologies of collecting responses don't result in accurate representation of the population.

Using collection methods that skew demographics in one direction or another, like older people being more likely to pick up a phone call.

Failing to account for other potentially major variables. Like the 2016 and 2020 elections, pollsters failed to account for negative voter turnout, people who were motivated to vote against a specific candidate, which had major impacts on the elections.

New information about the Trump indictment, any updates on how Republicans are dealing with this, any breaks between the far right Maga and the handful of less psychopathic Republicans, any comments from congress people about the indictments

Raised catholic here too, maybe catholic guilt but personally I think it's more so the pervading idea that people implicitly aren't allowed to exist in a space outside the home or offices unless they spend money and by walking out without buying anything bypasses the normal routine of going to a store to get something and going through some kind of checkout process.

Their comment seems more so that this isn't some wild revalation nobody saw coming, this literally almost happened on Jan 6.

I'm all for reiterating the danger that Trump and Republicans pose to our nation, but this article isn't bringing anything new to the convo, just one more voice saying Republicans will throw out democracy when things don't go their way.

I was in catholic school and started sex ed (well what counts as sex ed for a catholic school) in 5th grade. They told us about some of the most extreme cases of what some.of the worst sti's do and we watched video of an actual birth so if we could handle hearing and seeing those things in a catholic school, I think 5th graders can handle learning about how people express their genders.

Yeah... Wasn't that the point? Like Normies are people who's aren't terminally online and function in normal society.

While good, indictments are only one step in the legal process, they are not the end result. Most people were not confident we would even make it this far into the legal process with how much the justice system favors those with money and power and this situation has literally never happened in our history. We have never had a former president indicted for crimes.