>Graphing the progress of a sinking ship and pointing out that the downwards gradient has been stable for a while now and we should therefore be okay is generally not a useful extrapolation,
I like this analogy. I've had similar thoughts for a while too. Granted I also saw some research that society has been objectively getting better in a lot of areas people think is getting worse (like violence, specifically police abuse) compared to the past. theoretically this is because we have a lot more information now than before, so smaller occurrences are generating a larger impression.
that said, I still very much agree with your point and that it is very applicable to specific individualized issues. Saying that people have been concerned for a while and nothing bad has happened yet is accurate for the situation where nothing bad will happen, AND the situation that it was bad then and is worse now, AND the situation where we are approaching a tipping point / threshold where the bad will start.
Watch Tarantino movies. "The Hateful Eight" in particular was fantastic. It doesnt look like an action movie, but as someone who really enjoys small details of realism it felt like a very good action movie.
I think low carb diets are easier to mess up without realizing.
one - you cant go no carb, so it requires very accurate moderation which is something people tend to be bad at
two - the cheaper sources of protein and fat, which you now must eat more of, are often high in omega-6 instead of omega-3, or have the wrong balance of saturated vs unsaturated fats, not enough amino acids, etc
three - if you go for Keto, getting hit by points 1 and 2 together can easily create a health risk. Too much protein kicks you out of ketosis as well. You might chronically knock yourself out of keto without realizing it and eat a bunch of foods that you really only get away with eating by being in
So even though a proper keto diet, for example, might be perfectly fine. Recommending a keto diet to the general public very well might kill some people who historically have a bad track record for moderating their food intake
This is incorrect information. You can go, and live on literally zero grams of carbohydrates, though in reality there is always trace amounts in meat and vegetables. My optimal diet is around 5g of carbs per day. Unlike fats and proteins, there is no minimum level of dietary carbohydrates required to function.
The little amount the body requires can produce thanks to gluconeogenesis, and the vast majority of the energy is provided first by ketones then by free fatty acids after adaptation.
> You might chronically knock yourself out of keto without realizing it
Isn’t the keto flu something almost everyone experiences? That was always my understanding, so chronically knocking yourself out of ketosis would mean chronically being sick, I have a hard time believing people can do that without realizing it (and I’m one of the lucky ones where the process only takes a few days, it’s 1-2 weeks for my wife)
speaking quickly with broad strokes that really have a lot more underlying nuance than im implying:
there is a greater sharing of ideas in urban locations. more progression happens. they fail to spread the progression to rural locations.
It is a dynamic and evolving ecosystem and we are failing to educate and / or motivate rural locations to care about these things properly.
Instead urban culture usually acts superior, makes demands, and assume what they believe should be obvious and by not coming to the same conclusions immediately during a confrontation that means rural people are evil.
Rural people double down on the beliefs because at the end of the day nothing really matters and they might as well stick to something that gives them a sense of belonging since they very obviously do not belong with urban culture.
Just because people don't share your worldview doesn't mean they're uneducated or that education is the way to change their minds.
"...at the end of the day nothing really matters..." is the exact kind of worldview that rural people would prefer stay in the cities. If by "educating" me, you want to make me into a solipsistic nihilist, you can keep your education to yourself.
The only education in this thread that I would like to distill onto the rural populations is that Freedom of Choice does not take away your ability to have babies on whatever terms you want, nor does it remove your ability form a community with like minded people where abortions are frowned upon and everyone agrees not to get them and anyone who does is exiled from the community.
It does however mean someone has the right to choose whether or not they want to be a part of your community, and takes away your ability to use state and federal resources to enforce your choice as being more important than someone else's choice.
One, your choices also affect the people around you. Two, before the overturn, state and federal resources have been used to enforce and support those who choose to abort their babies, which is just the mirror of what you said, which negates your argument from that point. Three, all that happened is that now it becomes a state issue rather than a federal issue. Don't like your state? Move. Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.
In my initial post I was obviously aware that I was not going to paint a perfect picture of my opinion in this text forum. but sure, ill bite.
One - no shit, pro-choice has considerably less consequences on the people around you than pro life does.
Two - Nothing is invalidated, I made a sound argument that you are free to disagree with using your own sound argument. Using resources to support someones choice is not the same as using resources to take away someones choice. Abortion can be legal, and your state can still control to what extent resources will be used to support it.
Three - Yes I understand. I directed my previous message at rural people. the ones who decide on the laws. However, you advocate for people to go get an abortion in another state. that is pro-choice in spirit, isnt it? Why do you care if they cross a state border to get an abortion? If you are pro-choice, dont you want your state law to reflect that?
>Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.
except for the fact that "your" state can put you in jail for committing a crime if you do this.
I agree though that people should try to leave the state (entirely) if it has unagreeable laws and the majority in that state wants to preserve them. I also think the prolifers in my state should stop standing outside planned parenthood and move to a different state also. It's pretty dumb that people try to be a part of their community and improve it rather than move somewhere that already agrees with them, right?
Some argue the Supreme court has too much power. Whether you agree with the result or not, the Left absolutely abused the power of the Supreme Court in order to make fast progress. There was no reason to involve the Supreme Court in many of these cases in the first place other than because the laws themselves disagreed with what people wanted. But the people have the power to change the laws. We just havent.
which is also why 2nd amendment is relevant. if the people responsible for the creation of laws is sufficiently corrupted, then the public have the right to form a militia and replace them. Which you cannot do if those same corrupted people are the ones deciding who is allowed to have guns or not.
I don’t think the Court was intentionally abused though. The Left doesn’t have an equivalent to the Federalist Society that carefully evaluated every candidate to see if they held pro-LGBTQ positions for decades in order to eventually legalize gay marriage.
The Supreme Court has taken on relevance because Congress is worthless. When no laws can be passed, courts act as clever compilers to keep society working despite the source code being ancient. The programmers of the law have not updated it to match the reality on the ground nor the features users want. This is a far better outcome than an uprising against the government, but it will only work for so long. Ultimately Congress needs to become functional again, which will require compromise and pork barrel trading.
>The Supreme Court has taken on relevance because Congress is worthless
>Ultimately Congress needs to become functional again
Yes exactly. I keep seeing rhetoric that we "lost 50 years of progress". we didnt. We band-aided our government and had 50 years to make the proper correction and havent been able to yet. More importantly, though, I dont think we have really tried to
the group that was keeping that band-aid on is now out of power and we want to blame the other side for simply upholding separation of powers. I mean, it is tone deaf to do it now at best, but Mississippi pushed the issue. the court is obligated to uphold the law, not dictate it. Abortion as a privacy right has always been a weak stance.
Anecdotally, I have felt a growing disinterest in local politics growing for the past decade. I can name so many people who "didnt want to talk politics" 2 weeks ago who are now non-stop politically charged over roe v wade. I could roll my eyes about it all, but honestly I just hope it serves as enough of a wake up call for people to stay involved.
the supreme court did not ban abortion. It removed abortion as a legal right. It means people cannot use the power of the federal government to overrule their own state legislature on the topic of abortion.
If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
What the Supreme court did was allow for the POSSIBILITY of a fully Catholic US State to practice Catholic religion with respect to abortion. It ALSO allows a fully Jewish state to practice Jewish religion however they want with respect to abortion.
They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state. That's it. California, New York, etc, are absolutely and completely unaffected by this decision, for example.
> If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
This was actually part of the issue:
> After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
For way too long the entire political argument in the US on way too many things has been punted to the Supremes to let the elected officials get out of any responsibility whatsoever.
well, voting majority - not exactly every citizen.
The US is an agreement. It is more comparable to the EU than it is Spain, or France, etc. Each state is meant to have autonomy relatively similar to a country, but are united together for purposes of national defense and human rights. that was the initial premise. it's expanded from there, but the constitution was a compromise.. states did not want to join the union just to transfer power from a king to a federal government.
The heart of the Republican platform is upholding that compromise. The heart of the Democratic platform is that was then, this is now, we are a single country and need to centralize more power.
the supreme court did not ban abortion. It removed abortion as a legal right. It means people cannot use the power of the federal government to overrule their own state legislature on the topic of abortion.
If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
What the Supreme court did was allow for the POSSIBILITY of a fully Catholic US State to practice Catholic religion with respect to abortion. It ALSO allows a fully Jewish state to practice Jewish religion however they want with respect to abortion.
They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state. That's it. California, New York, etc, are absolutely and completely unaffected by this decision, for example.
> They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state.
Quite the motte and bailey you've got there. Do you think that this court will make an about-face and suddenly recognize the constitutionality of the Establishment clause? Textualist/originalist, my ass.
Catholic people will make catholic laws. They wont literally be catholic laws.. but common sense would allow you to see them as such. There's nothing wrong with that either. The state does not need to recognize them as catholic laws and requires the laws be articulated and produced independent of the religion.
you cannot make a law that says "You must treat the poor the way Jesus would" but you can make a law that says "You cannot refuse life saving medical treatment to someone for being poor". Under Separation of Church a State can still create their set of laws to be 1:1 with the teachings of their religion. They just have to actually do that.. make the set of laws. they cant say "follow rules in the bible". The laws supersede the bible. Make the laws match the bible if you want people to follow the bible. So that's what these states are doing.
Only, they are saying the quiet part loudly now. And Clarence Thomas has been arguing that individual states can establish religions for at least two decades less three days[1]. Law is semantics.
Right, but that's also the point I was making. People think creating a law based on the beliefs of religious people violates the separation of church and state. It doesnt. the semantic nature of the law is relevant here.
I was highlighting that by saying you could make a state that effectively is a religious state using the current system. since the semantics are still there and must be accounted for, this prevents it from actually being a religious state.
By adhering to the semantics, no amount of religious belief can lead a state to violate the constitution.. even if the state bases every single one of its laws on religion. And if they try to, then the federal government has authority to enforce otherwise.
Weed is a tool. it makes you high. that's about it as far as generalizations go.
if weed makes someone feel fulfilled, then they can farm a lot more feelings of fulfillment by using it than the old fashioned way of actually accomplishing things. I think trying to shame people away from it is silly. People who use it will very quickly realize it isnt bad, and then they dismiss everything they heard about it.
There is a monkey paw warning in that it wears off. It wears off in short and long terms; it is less effective the more you use it over time. So be aware that the spectrum for its effects is along the lines of "kind of cool for a little bit" to "everything you love slowly being ripped from your hands". the latter extreme probably being pretty rare and more applicable to heroin.
Otherwise you could make the same 'danger' argument about video games, porn, social media, reading books, painting, co-dependent relationships, etc. Anything that people use to dump their attention / time into rather than deal with anything uncomfortable in their life. The vessels people use are a matter of preference, and tangential to the underlying problem.
There is always an issue with trying to use 1 tool to fix every problem. obsession. Weed usage requires nuance and an understanding of what it is you are trying to accomplish with it. same as any other drug, same as any other tool.
Honestly, if someone wants to do nothing with their life than smoke weed.. who cares? I certainly dont. They might be one of the last people I offer any sort of charity to, but that's about me not them.
what school allows for anyone to sit with kids at the school unsupervised? I feel like people keep glossing over that.
Juul arranged to be there, but I find ithard to believe they did anything to explicitly prevent other adults from being in the room. No one at the school had enough common sense to be like "someone should chaperon this" ?
I kind of agree that it was probably entirely inconsequential to the popularity of juul though.
I like this analogy. I've had similar thoughts for a while too. Granted I also saw some research that society has been objectively getting better in a lot of areas people think is getting worse (like violence, specifically police abuse) compared to the past. theoretically this is because we have a lot more information now than before, so smaller occurrences are generating a larger impression.
that said, I still very much agree with your point and that it is very applicable to specific individualized issues. Saying that people have been concerned for a while and nothing bad has happened yet is accurate for the situation where nothing bad will happen, AND the situation that it was bad then and is worse now, AND the situation where we are approaching a tipping point / threshold where the bad will start.