So the bear was already dead and rather than miss his flight he decided to dump it somewhere that other people would have to deal with it? I get that it isn’t the right thing to do, but this is rather minor in the grand scheme of things that messed up politicians do. I know people love to hate on anyone that they think takes votes away from Democrats. I know Biden is no longer running but I can give you a list of things Biden did that is way more awkward than this and no one here would have said a thing. Heck, they would have been calling people fascist for pointing them out.
Have you ever hit an animal? I never said it was normal. I said it was already dead and that there are far bigger issues to worry about. Is it weird that Biden is okay giving Israel more weapons being used to slaughter children?
Bro, it would be one thing if he hit the bear and just left it there. Accidents happen. Heck, I could even understand talking the body with him, especially if he intended to make use of it’s skin/meat (waste not, and all that). But the point where I draw the line is when he decided that his not-drunken actions have inconvenienced him and he irresponsibly dumped the bear in central park, rather than taking it somewhere to be disposed of properly. Say nothing of the attempt to stage it as a bike accident as a joke. True psychopath behavior right there.
I am not sure we should be playing death count olympics. Besides, it’s a bit weird that Hindus only care about Hindus and we didn’t hear shit when civilians were dying already.
I think nobody really wants to talk about it, because this is sadly just what happens in a power vacuum after dethroning an existing leadership. Lots of people think there is no law and order and try to grab power by whatever means.
Its not like this isnt preventable tho, the military and police are still there and should be perfectly functional. They either dont care, are scared or are with the terrorists.
Kaiser Family Foundation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Kaiser Family Foundation:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Minnesota State Fair is in a couple weeks and the DFL booth always brings the fire with their shirt selection. I’ll definitely be buying a few this year.
It’s not about the spelling… Trump has trouble reading so he always sounds things out that he doesn’t quite understand or when he’s unsure of himself. It’s a pretty standard coping strategy for people who are still learning to read.
He does this constantly: Whenever he slows down (weirdly) during one of his endless rants it’s usually before a word he has difficulty with. Examples of words he regularly has trouble with: Chinanuclear, Venezuela, felony
In the past he’s said, “United Stage”, “respectered”, and often starts making noise sounds like, “ding!”, “boom!”, and “bam!” to distract from his mistakes… Like some elementary school kid in class that’s been forced to read out loud.
My personal estimate is that he has somewhere around a 4th or 5th grade reading level. After reading this, if you hear one of his speeches it will suddenly become so obvious that he has trouble reading that you’ll wonder how you never noticed before.
Everything that’s ever appeared on his teleprompter is the simplest words possible except in cases where avoiding complicated words is impossible. I’m certain he practices these special words with his handlers regularly and tries to repeat their emphasis of certain parts of words which is why he says some words strangely (e.g. whenever he says “China”).
Betsy DeVos is the sister of Erik Prince who founded Blackwater, the controversial mercenary group, for those that didn’t know. She vehemently suppressed anything that would benefit public education and funneled public funds to private education while she was Secretary Of Education.
Personally, I want FDA approval to mean it is as provably safe and effective as possible. They said they wanted more evidence before approval, and I think that’s okay. Good, even.
The way the US treats recreational drug use and self-medication is horrific, but it’s not really the domain of the FDA.
I would rather have not-yet-FDA-approved legal-for-personal-use mdma than what we have now or an unproven drug approved by the FDA.
Shouldn’t it need to be shown to be unsafe to remove people’s choice to use it though? Proving it safe would be great, but the claim to prevent usage should be that it’s harmful. It’s removing a choice. We shouldn’t have to prove everything is safe to be allowed to do it. We do plenty of things that are unsafe, but these drugs aren’t allowed for no good reason.
K, well, you also have the choice to eat literally any mushroom you find growing in the ground, doesn’t mean it’d be legal to sell them as shishkabs on the street. Wtf are you on about mate
It’s illegal to use these drugs, no matter how you get them. Should that be the case just because some old people don’t like people using them, not because they’re particularly harmful? Alcohol causes a ton of harm, but it’s legal to use. Why is it different?
Strawman. You aren’t legally allowed to make ecstacy at home even if you are capable, nor are you allowed to consume it if you have it. Also, ecstacy wasn’t illegal during the prohibition. That’s all irrelevant.
People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t pose a serious risk to others. Racism is most of what caused the war on drugs, and it’s mostly futile, and often actively harmful. It prevents people from accessing things that may help them (or they may just enjoy), and creating black markets where none need exist. It also creates situations where people may buy stuff and it not be pure, which could be controlled for if legal.
Yes, you are a straw man. Alcohol worked because it’s different from ecstasy. Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable. The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
Lol. What does that mean? Your argument was a strawman argument. You constructed something new to argue against instead of my original argument.
Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
I can grow my own mushrooms with psilocybin. It’s under the same controls as ecstacy. Do you stand by your logic and agree it should be legal to grow and consume? That isn’t the logic used to make it illegal though, which is what matters.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable.
Yes, and it’s profitable because there’s no legal alternative. There are very few black markets for alcohol, for example, because it’s not necessary and not profitable when a legal option is easily available with checks to ensure it’s safe and actually what it says it is. Legalize drugs and we can make them safer to use and mostly eliminate black markets, which create a lot of danger and criminal activity.
The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
No, it was mostly for politics, and winning them through racism. It’s fairly well documented.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
If there is proof of quality, even without consequences from the government (which should probably also be in place), consumers wouldn’t purchase from places selling a bad product unless it’s significantly cheaper. The consequence would be fewer buyers and having to have lower prices. Legality also allows people to seek treatment without fear of being held accountable for using an illegal product. It let’s people openly discuss options and issues. It also creates an environment for legal competition, not just turf wars. Legalizing drugs has a huge number of benefits without going into things like the harm caused by policing.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
You asked what’s different about alcohol. I gave an answer. How is that a strawman? Also, the reason I called you a straw man is because you seem to be grasping at straws.
_
My logic is that alcohol is so easily made and of such variety that attempting to outlaw it was proven to be a pointless endeavor. Do psilocybin mushrooms share the same circumstances? If so, then attempting to ban them completely would likely end up in a similar situation as with alcohol.
_
Again, legalizing something doesn’t automatically make it safer. Without proper supervision, legality only provides free reign over production and distribution. Which can mean more product, faster sales, lower quality. Can it be safer? Yes. Will it? By looking at current examples of similar persuasion, it’s doubtful.
_
Documentation changes all the time, so I won’t stick to my point of view for long on any matters that prove otherwise.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.