My logic was exactly what I said it was. I never claimed it was good logic. And I never claimed to be psychic and magically understand what other people’s logic is despite them plainly saying their logic is something else. But if that’s what makes you feel superior enough to get through the day then you do you.
Yeah and I just saw (after writing all that!) that Russia and China had warned the USA to not attack Iran, so I could absolutely be way off base there.
Edit: the logic had more to do with Russia’s ambitions to reform their lost empire. Afaik it’s widely believed that after Ukraine, Russia will go for Kazakhstan and possibly Afghanistan. It’s less that I see Russia siding with the USA and Israel, and more that I think Russia will be opportunistic in its military expansion.
I think we can expect Iran to just keep on fighting back, but who I’m REALLY looking at now is Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel, they would enter the war on the side of Iran. Even if America’s participation in the war stopped here (not fucking likely) if Pakistan follows through with their threat then this escalation really, honest to God, could be the start of WW3.
Because here’s the thing: India has been trying to goad Pakistan into their own war for a few months now. So here’s my prediction, although be warned it gets a little crazy after the first 5 points:
Ultimately, the two sides:
THE AGGRESSORS
THE RESPONSE
Oddly I see Australia sitting this one out, as their politics are far enough right to not want to go to war with their traditional allies (eg, the USA) but not left enough to support the response in any meaningful way. Something would have to force their involvement.
As for Central and South America, it’s a mixed bag. Obviously some countries like El Salvador will support Trump, but I think most of them will defend Panama if they get involved at all. I certainly can’t see Argentina and Chile being ok with just letting anybody pass Cape Horn.
Africa I just have no fucking clue. China has been involved in a lot of African countries in very big ways that the African countries aren’t entirely happy about. They could take advantage of the circumstances to seize and nationalize Chinese assets within their borders, which puts them at odds with China/Russia/Israel/et allies and I think they would be pretty ok with that. South Africa in particular I think may take a more active role against the aggressors, given their position controlling the Cape of Good Hope.
Tldr if this plays out anything even remotely like what I’ve written here, and I really REALLY how it doesn’t, we’re all VERY FUCKED.
(This is a work of total conjecture, I’m probably wrong, so don’t waste your breath telling me I’m wrong. That said some of my logic may not be obvious, so I’m happy to answer questions to clarify my thoughts)
But that’s not the point of insurance, which is a cost-sharing practice (presumably, ideally) designed so that the person who DOES get the ambulance ride doesn’t have to pay for the whole thing themselves and go into financial ruin because of it.
Your argument is profoundly selfish and it’s logical conclusion is the abolishment of insurance altogether.
The problem is that, for many, their “political agenda” is to take a position that’s supported by scientifically backed research. If some research appeared tomorrow unequivocally and clearly invalidated the existence of trans people, the BMA and others like them would change their tune to match that research. However, there’s over a hundred years worth of clinical and scientific studies supporting the validity of trans people, including studies showing that
Meanwhile the research against trans people is just… Bad research. One of the most famous studies on whether trans kids persisted as trans conflated transgender with gender non-conforming people, meaning that cis gender people were labeled as trans because they didn’t fit the researchers’ assumptions about how a man or woman should look/behave. That same study assumed outcomes of subjects that they lost track of instead of omitting them from the study.
Another that coined the phrase “rapid onset dysphoria” had serious selection bias issues, only interviewing parents who were in support groups for folks who don’t want their kids to be trans. Additionally, the phrase given above was only mentioned in the conclusion of the study as one possible explanation for the observations made about trans kids, with the caveat that more research was needed to confirm/deny this explanation. Of course the right wing media leaves out that part.
My third favorite example wasn’t a research study at all, but basically an opinion piece published as research. In it the author insists that trans women are “gynophiliacs” who transition ONLY because they get turned on by vaginas. No evidence was given to support this assertion, just some twisted logic by the author going “well the other reasons don’t make sense to me.”
But no, it’s the people who are supportive of trans folks who keep getting accused of having a political agenda. My dude, it’s the opposite; they just care about the truth.
That’s so fucking rage inducing, and then I read the article.
First paragraph
citing the 24-year-old’s future as a gynecologist
Holy fucking shit that’s fucking EVIL
For the asshole, I would have gone with Dawkins
There’s a very real chance they did this for her protection. If ICE/customs somehow got wind of the subject she’s speaking on, or even had a suspicion, there’s a very real chance he would be denied entry and detained for deportation.
Approving the post and then locking it before anyone could comment would be a hilarious and fitting way to answer the question!
Here’s the issue:
These people with only a few birds are less likely to take the time and money to responsibly deal with a potential outbreak in their flocks. Some will, but many won’t, and the ones who don’t then become a vector for spreading the disease even further, including an increase in the possibility of the virus making the jump to humans.
To be clear the solution isn’t to discourage people from keeping chickens in their backyard. The solution is more education on the issues and regulations to require people to keep their flocks responsibly.
But we live in America, where apparently it’s an individuals’ right to put their whole community at risk. So, I don’t know what else to say other than that ignorance kills.
People say that about the rich in America too. “Don’t tax them, they’ll leave and take all their money with them!”
But I dunno, maybe we shouldn’t let people get so rich we’re terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought…
But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren’t going to leave because they’re making less profit as long as “less profit” is more than “how much profit will I have if I leave”
Of course, now that they’ve completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.
Sounds like your friend is making assumptions about the correlation between their mental/emotional state and dopamine levels. It’s a superficially reasonable assumption, but given the interplay between hormones and brain chemistry it’s seems possible to me that dopamine levels simply have nothing to do with it and the issue is wholly to do with hormones.
I would be interested in reading any studies that support what your friend is saying. But minus evidence I have to think that your friend is l drawing incorrect conclusions about what would cause the phenomenon they’re experiencing.
This whole non-reaction thing has the vibe of the band playing as the Titanic sunk, fucking hell
Yes. Correct. Because it is.
I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it’s not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.
But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.
“Sex at time of conception” can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.
The EO doesn’t concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote’s (chromosomal) sex.
Unfortunately this isn’t true, which is too bad because it’d be hilarious if it were.
The “everyone is female” thing doesn’t apply until the embryonic stage, weeks after fertilization, while the EO specifies “at conception” which is the germinal stage when the offspring is only a zygote. As a zygote it has no phenotypical sex, only chromosomal sex.
“Everyone is female” may be funny, but bad information doesn’t help anyone and it certainly doesn’t save trans lives.
The only unintended consequence of the EO that I can see is that anyone who’s infertile (specifically anyone who doesn’t produce sperm or eggs) as a direct result of their DNA is now legally unrecognizable by the federal government.
Thank you!
I hate these “gotcha” responses like the “everyone is female” thing.
Of the many MANY ways that “biological sex” can be determined (phenotype, hormone, etc) the ONLY one that exists at the time of conception when we’re not even talking embryo stage yet because there’s only one fertilized cell (or two if you want until mitosis begins) is chromosomal sex.
“But we’re all female at first” isn’t going to hold up in court, and it’s NOT going to save trans lives. We need to do better.
Great question! Thankfully somebody is already working on that, and it’s pretty neat.
Not me!
I cry in the shower at night after work.
Thankfully, the Constitution gives us a way to redress this situation! Congress just has to impeach and remo… OH GODDAMNIT 🙎♀️