Yes, because the CDC is the only source of academic research in the US. Activist talking points are unfortunately rarely accurate. The Dickey Amendment reduced research into gun violence, but under no circumstances did it eliminate; it's also been changed since it was first passed.
The real reason why gun violence research is often poor quality is the same as why most social research is poor quality: high variability, unaccounted variables, differences in interpretation of questionnaire's, unreliability of self-reporting, and the fact that most studies are conducted by parties interested in a specific result.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.
And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn't really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like "freedom" and "liberty" are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
Not a gun nut. But these studies don't actually test any hypothesis about defensive gun use.
It is easily probable that it is simply the case that people obtain firearms for defense against an existing threat or are the threat themselves( i.e are susceptible to far greater violent events than the norm). In order to test that guns actually are ineffective in self-defense you need to compare it to actual incidents of violence towards the gun user.
What is dignity and why is it morally relevant? I'll even let you assume that dignity by definition requires a third-party to provide assistance in active killing.
Assisted suicide requires that one's desire takes preeminence over any future value of existence and that society has a responsibility to satisfy this desire.
Adding a restriction on when you are allowed to assist in it (besides purely the subject's immediate desire) is special pleading. This is why MAID in Canada is slippery sloping into euthanasia for all and any reason, because there is no actual barrier to it after they accepted the initial premises.
This is not true. I lived in one of the most conservative cities in the US for many years, and the Middle Eastern and African immigrants openly spoke whatever their native language is. They avoided it only in the typical circumstances, when other speakers weren't around. This is not an actual concern for immigrants.
As for the level of xenophobia, it's true a lot of people don't like foreigners, but you are overstating the level of open opposition. Just like how a lot of people don't like Trump supporters and even personally feel them to be fascists, but claiming that Trump supporters are not free to express their opinions is completely false.
Wrote a basic primality checker library, it's not by far my most interesting or complex project but I like that I accomplished all my initial goals in a timely fashion.
If you've spent any time on the "dark web" this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.
I've personally seen little evidence of her being a crank. I've seen many claims and they mostly tie to her running a sort of consultation company, but no evidence of her or her firm promoting objectionable ideas. Sure she might oversimplify some topics, particularly economics and sociology. But I think her main critique in the trans video holds up... a lot of the research is poor quality and while not directly the fault of the researchers (although many of them do promote it) it is used to support hypotheses that were never tested.
I think you are severely overstating the level of knowledge of most journalists. Most science reporting to the public goes like this: journalist hears something, contacts a single scientist in the field, or is contacted by a single scientist. They talk to that person for a few minutes, then write their article. That's being generous, many simply copy press releases and add their own interpretation.
There are only a handful of decent scientific reporting agencies targeting the public that actually do a good job.
Deuterium is pretty common, and tritium can be produced by lithium irradiation. They are finite resources, but still much larger than pretty much any existing resource.
It is true that fusion equipment suffers from neutron radiation, however this is a potential for breeding tritium.
"Arab spring ..."
So you cite an example of social activism that disastrously failed (by your own admission) to justify a similar action by your hand?
Even then it doesn't disprove that individuals that contribute more are statistically more likely to be noticed when absent. If you want to have an impact, especially a positive one, it helps to not have anger as your sole motivator.
"So there is no ruling class"
What exactly is a ruling class to you? There will always be a deciding group. Even in anarcho-fantasies that rule by consensus there will always be a small group that refuses to negotiate, they become the ruling class in that circumstance. So do they get deported to an archipelago for refusing to come to a consensus? Don't the deporters become the ruling class then?
Any sort of organized society outside of intimate groups needs some sort of hierarchical decision making. It's one thing to advocate for positions to be more logically allocated, and another to be completely destroyed.
"Don't put words in my fucking mouth"
I'm impressed that you aren't apparently a hypocrite by holding others to a logical standard that you don't follow. Unfortunately that logical standard is that being angry justifies spreading textual diarrhea all over Lemmy.
I can smash on a keyboard and then write a citation to whatever nonsense comes. An intelligent person cross-references it with well established facts, and then decides if it's probably true.
The idea that US support for Israel started in the 80s is refuted by hundreds of data points in Israeli history.
"It's rude and uncalled for"
It's totally called for. You could literally have read the Wikipedia on history of modern Israel and seen that it was patently false.
How do you abolish the profit motive? It's literally just the motivation to benefit from a transaction.
"Put the ruling class in work camps"
So create another ruling class to imprison these people? Do the new ruling class have to be subject to imprisonment as well? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is now oppressing the previously wealthy? Shouldn't they also be subject to imprisonment for abuses?
"At least that way my vote might mean something"
And it will mean more depending on how much you contribute to society.
"I'm so tired and angry all the time"
So am I. I'm so tired and angry, I have no recourse but to criticise you. Oh, that's not a legitimate reason, you say? My mood doesn't justify my behaviour you say?
Pretty standard in manufacturing sector. There are so few people with the skillset and reliability to operate a factory, that they perpetually pay out overtime because they really have no other option.
You joke, because you have nothing to contribute. You're not demoralised, this has no effect on you.
"They murder us... nothing but meat"
And you are offering alternatives how? Stop pretending to be outraged when you care so little that you can't even be bothered to investigate the causes of issues and proffer solutions.
You could write bindings to machine-prime . Hardly anything challenging for an actual programmer, but I'll take the free labor if it is available.