The upside sounds made up. There is no reason to believe that people with this challenge have this feature rather than you yourself having this feature for reasons completely unrelated to this.

How on earth can you imagine that has no downsides?

It appears to be a functional lack with no upside its a disability

No they aren’t especially if you combine 40+ or men with that statement.

Your pharmacy lied. There is no legal requirement to try to bill insurance first they presumably stand in many cases to bill them more especially if you cash paid only after coupons or patient assistance programs which are essentially coupons.

Thus they choose to follow this process and lie to you.

Notably hamas being essentially the government there includes clerks cooks janitors, plumbers.

Kinda hard to personally blow up the building where bob the plumber sleeps killing him his kids and 10 other folks and claim to have hit any military targets.

Governments often claim to kill a military target when they kill a prime age male even without realistically identifying a combatant especially where bombing is used.

It’s probably closer to 80-90% civilians

It is fundamentally impossible for Gazans to relocate in the numbers required to avoid mass death. Remainder that this was one of the most populated areas in the world with at least 2 million people in 2024. None of their neighbors want ANY refugees and will not accept 2M individually or as a group and it would remain a humanitarian crisis in which many would die even if they were welcomed with open arms.

There is only 2 choices. Cessation of hostility and genocide.

This reasoning is founded on the idea that there is at any given time a reasonably just distribution of wealth and the capability of the market to fill most any niche that society needs. Neither is even close to true the best way to get more wealth isn’t to do anything in particular it is to already possess it and those who hold the overwhelming majority of wealth act to continually tilt the game board to ensure more of it fills their pockets and absent laws limiting their power and redistributing their wealth inevitably until their entire society collapses.

We and others have been flogging the idea of the market as the solution to all ills for about 3 centuries and their isn’t a nation on earth that is anything remotely like purely capitalistic because there is no fucking reason to believe such a thing could ever work. Every functional nation has a central government which subsists on either a massive pile of material wealth it has appropriated for itself like Saudi Arabia or taxes its citizens to perform many functions that the market is ill suited to provide. If Libertarianism worked why has nobody done it in centuries?

You point out the money spent by LA to address homelessness and treat waste as a natural law when it is a function of a defective system not a specific failing which it so obviously is. We burn a bunch of money pretending to solve homelessness because we are shits. Finland solves it by housing nearly everyone because they are not. Hell social security, medicaid, and medicare proves the government CAN if it sets it’s mind to it help people successfully.

The love the idea of performative goodness which costs them less than a dollar one time which they can then milk endlessly for good vibes with their fellow man buuuuut they really don’t want to come off $300 every month so that the young woman who works in the same establishment can have enough to feed her kids well. It costs a lot more it scales and nobody personally thanks them or sees them being a good person when they pay the IRS to fund this. If they pay the IRS that is.

Most Jewish people are pro Israel and amongst those who are most religious or Orthodox most rises to an overwhelming majority.

This isn’t pretending an ethic group has negative characteristics from a stereotype this is acknowledging an actual view most in a group have.

Most Americans are pro Christianity. Even if you view Christianity negatively it’s ok to say Americans are infatuated with the trappings if not the actual virtues of Christianity because it’s true even if this isn’t true of every single one of us.

To my understanding Jew is not perjorative but could be in context eg if offense is obviously intended or if mention of ethnicity or religion is otherwise irrelevant.

I’m aware that different states have different laws but in no state does possession of a weapon magically obviate all claims of self defense against an unarmed person.because possession of a weapon in no way obviates the risk to you that you are attempting to ameliorate by killing the fucker.

EG if someone broke into your home to rape and murder you you aren’t going to jail for stabbing them with a kitchen knife. If you disagree pick a specific state where you think the law works like that and I’ll be happy to look at the relevant info.

What is the expected results of such protest the monied interests and the top half have most of the money like 88% of the wealth and closer to 100% of the liquid wealth. This money pays for the campaigns of the politicians who are beholden to it.

Unsafe doesn’t mean 100 incidence of death it means greater than tolerance levels of risk.

Some place not being safe is defined as greater than n rate of insert list of bad things per capita.

For most folks 100 in 100k murdered annually is pretty unsafe whereas 5 is pretty safe.

But even if it were 1000 in 100k the other 99k still living could argue its not that bad!

You basically can’t go to almost any population center without what the civilized world considers unacceptable risk whereas I can stroll through the “bad” part of my city at 2AM and mostly risk seeing gross people doing drugs.

Mexico is objectively unsafe. Some parts of states are too like st Louis

Sort of. They would be liable to alert on people who HAD consumed drugs earlier or had been around people that had consumed drugs. Furthermore it has been shown in a scientific study that dogs alert in part based on their owners suspicion even when not deliberately signaled to do so and since such suspicion is liable to fall on minorities just serves to justify the dogs masters pre-existing judgement.

White people and men believed that electing a white man who said that it was ok to privilege white men was ok.

Religious and conservatives saw him appointing judges doing their will.

Many believed he would cut their taxes and these tax cuts would stimulate the economy.

People don’t always vote for things they told you they voted for. People act shocked that we elected a brainless piece of human filth. The filth told them he would give them things they want. People didn’t vote for or against gaza on average they just don’t actually care.

Take a singular correct conclusion you will find there are often multiple paths to the same destination. You can for instance cook your food enough because it tastes better that way without understanding food safety. They probably didn’t find their way by accident.

I’m not going to individually go over 34 polls so lets pick the first arbitrarily

https://split-ticket.org/2024/07/10/we-polled-the-nation-heres-what-we-found/?ref=use-these-numbers.ghost.io

First one is about Biden it shows 13% going to third parties and 6% I don’t know. That is interesting but useless in determining anything of note. It’s also pretty wrong. More people always SAY they are going to vote third party than actually do. They lie to polls or to themselves.

Next we have Harris v Trump with 8% undecided equally useless for determining our counterfactual.

Next we have a question wherein they are arbitrarily asked if they would support “A candidate who” not a particular person but a arbitrary person who holds a given view. We learn that based on what people SAY there are always enough undecided to swing it either way but more people say they would vote for a democrat who holds those views. Now at last we have something interesting right well…

The problem is that something which adds blue voters in a blue state or too few to swing a red state is worth nothing in the final analysis. We know that some people say they would vote not for a actual candidate but for or against an imaginary hypothetical candidate but not if these gains would result in a single EC vote even if 100% true. The fact that again its a hypothetical person instead of the actual folks that people have strong feelings about is again also problematic.

In the end I’m no more convinced than I started. I’m not doing this 33 more to prove that the rest is equally trash because you wasted my time by not collecting a singular example instead of a huge list of bullshit.

When in the last 9 years or so have the polls been accurate enough to make this statement? The stated margin for error is usually big enough to go either way and the actual accuracy has been less than one would suppose from the margin of error.