jasory @ jasory @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

301

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Cops often plant evidence to get convictions"- Police don't prosecute, get your conspiracy theories straight.

"This was a targeted killing"

It almost certainly was, the victim was involved in drugs and probably knew violent people and kept in touch with them.

The real case is far more likely to be "reformed drug addict killed by former acquaintance", than "journalist killed for reporting issues".

Literally so ignorant. Sweating is not the only way to lose heat. How much heat does the body generate?

The fact that people may die from a certain temperature, does not mean they will die which is what every person here is claiming. Again read a physiology textbook, humans aren't that fragile.

"Assume ultimate legislating ability"- Unless you are whining about Marbury v Madison, what on earth are you talking about? SCOTUS doesn't write laws, they rule on the permissibility of (a small fraction) of them.

"Impractical supermajorities"

Did you just discover what checks and balances are? One should want supermajorities because you don't want laws based on shaky public support. Do we really think the cycle of each president overturning the previous presidents policy is practical?

Again, no. As long as you can replenish water and electrolytes, you're not going to die. It doesn't take a few hours to kill someone by heat. If you are actually unable to regulate your body temperature, your core temperature will increase much faster than "taking a whole day". It's the loss of water and electrolytes that inihibits your metabolism and cooling that makes you die, not the heat taking several hours to permeate through your skin. (Human metabolism generates a lot of heat, so this idea is even more absurd if you think about it).

Read a physiology textbook, or even basic evolutionary biology if a human couldn't survive 40C with humidity, humans would be extinct.

This patently false, compared to the world as a whole the US is quite liberal. Only in certain aspects, compared to certain European countries is the US "right-wing". US for instance has way more liberal freedom of speech and religion than most countries. How many European countries have a state religion?

"It's also a bad thing"

You realise you can change laws? Congress does it regularly. The Constitution primarily restricts the type of laws that can be passed. Congress has huge leeway otherwise.

"so it does seem like the power to do this is electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch"

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

Court expansion has always been done by Congress, it's interpreted as an extension of it's power to create courts.

Everybody is a liar. Have a casual conversation with someone, then thoroughly research every claim they make and you're pretty much guaranteed to run into a falsehood.

You should be less gullible.

I like how you add information that I never critiqued. The point is that claiming that having 3 years of minimal payments is somehow not a reprieve from the previous circumstances, is utterly false.

If you want to argue for free university, then fine do it. But do it from the very beginning, don't tack it on to some vaguely related initial comment.

"The question of personal responsibility is irrelevant in governance"

I actually agree, it's where I think conservatives fail. Where liberals fail is ascribing moral blame for personal decisions on others. When someone makes a conscious personal decision to take risk, you can't just blame society for when they individually have an unsatisfactory outcome. (It's the same shit we get when we ask how society failed all those poor mass shooters).

Now of course this entire post was an individualistic claim, so maybe you can see why I didn't start with a federal policy critique.

Nothing you said supported your thesis statement.

Personal responsibility is choosing to take on debt and then paying it off. The money amounts are not relevant, especially not a difference as small as you presented. Even the fact of it being a college loan doesn't matter, any sort of investment borrowing would apply.

"Allow people to get a chance"

They had 3 years... before that it was expected that they would make payments. Are you under the impression that everyone took out these loans thinking that they would never have to pay them back?

Without looking at the numbers, gross profit is before expenditures, so it's not like Ford has 24 billion in surplus money.

"I assume that there is some cooking of the books"

Or maybe there is stronger competition and profit margins have fallen?

You should have linked a physiology reference.

Do you know what temperature a hot tub is? That's with nearly full body immersion, 40 C with 70 percent humidity is easily survivable.

Of course any outside temperature above 37 has a possibility of killing you, but those are the extreme outliers. If the claims being made here were accurate, humans wouldn't exist, we would never have survived a tropical summer.

Given that they have changed testing multiple times since WW2 this is almost certainly false. Additionally a perfect ASVAB score isn't that rare, so your station probably recorded one before you.

What? Tropical regions regularly get that hot, are we supposed to believe that humans die off during the day and get replaced in the night?

I live in Maricopa county, and while yes people do die from the heat, it's not really a substantial amount (about 400 out of over 4 million). It's almost always the elderly or people with severe health problems.

But we are talking about a professional community, most people in this community that the post is about aren't friends and likely don't interact with each other outside of the work they do.

"Ostracizing" the accuser is generally voluntary. There is a difference between "I'm not comfortable working with this person" and leaving, and everyone coming to you and saying "Get out".

The latter is fairly rare to happen to accusers, but it's expected for the accused.

Perhaps my statement was too broad to be formally provable, but it is quite obvious they they are using buzzwords and arguments exclusive to a certain political sector, completely ignoring it's lack of veracity and even applicability.

This would be like a libertarian arguing that the NAP, applies to the immorality of eating toast because it was enumerated in the Bible. A wrong argument based on false premises.

If you really cared about critical analysis then maybe you should have pointed out all the false statements made by the OP to them.

If we have insufficient information, how do we know that innocent people are actually being harmed, or if we do take action (the minimum action you seem to be advocating for is ostracism) against the accused how do we know that they are not the innocent ones?

Are we really supposed to resort to broad statistics when making intimate decisions?

Pretty sure they are arguing that any discussion about "non-majority-conforming" persons is moderated or censored by the existing majority to the disadvantage of the minority.