I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

Ain’t she a beaut?

I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.

ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don’t seem to want to do that.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.

Arguably, you don’t tell them, and they don’t try to steal the idea, or try to sabotage it, or decide to build was plans that don’t depends on a successful nuclear strike.

If you sit down and think about it, this is the easiest way for the federal government to increase revenue without directly increasing taxes.

Except that when tariffs are this high, they discourage imports and purchasing. It’s self-defeating.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

It is always easier to destroy than to build, or to protect.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.

nothing will ever make it right.

Strongly disagree. If someone had killed Musk a year ago, the world would be a different place today. A better place, I think.

If someone had killed Trump ten years ago, how many COVID deaths would be avoided? How much damage to our economy would not have happened? How many hungry people across the world would still have food from a USAID shipment?

There are plenty of times it would be right to kill people. But who can we trust to make that decision? I’m confident I’m right, but I would not want to have to do it.

So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.

His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.

What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?