Favorite team:LSU 
Location:Texas
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:11540
Registered on:4/25/2004
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Why is opt out (the current policy) not good enough?
That was a side benefit. The main benefits are protecting yourself from diseases and protecting other people. Plus, those vaccines are needed in all sorts of walks of life. You can't work as a health care worker or serve in the military without them (and for good reason).
there are going to be tradeoffs. I had my kids vaccinated because I thought the health benefits were significant and risks were minimal relative to the benefit, plus it allows them to go to a school with kids who have health problems they wouldn't otherwise because their parents wouldn't expose them to risk. It's helped my kids develop some empathy for those with health problems - not a bad thing.
quote:

The onus should never be on one child to protect another.

Period.


Any politics that operationalizes this will have to make peace with considerably more preventable diseases, deaths, disability, and higher healthcare costs.
That's a significant health issue that you were right to be concerned about. Even if there was a HIV vaccine I don't think it would be school-mandated, though, because in the general case HIV isn't a risk to casual contact.
Not everyone can be vaccinated and vaccines aren't 100% effective.
Unless you're having sex at school or sharing needles there, HIV+ kids aren't a risk for transmitting that virus. Not so for the other diseases that schools require being vaccinated for which are passed through breathing/coughing.
yep. “Don’t ban it, just sue them” assumes corporations won’t spend billions ensuring you can never quite prove causation and history suggests that they absolutely will. And DDT and lead got ultimately got regulated because doubt worked too well, foiling legal liability.
Posted by Translator:
quote:

I'm not translating shite.


user name does not check out.
Thoughtful post and I agree with you on the importance of a real uncertainty about what a post-Putin Russia looks like. Nevertheless, they're not a blank slate, but are operating under some critical constraints on future possibilities - a weakened great power negotiating from dependency.

Their historical norm is centralized authority, militarization, repression, and buffer-seeking while examples of retreating from that (e.g under Gorbachev/Yeltsin) are unfortunately anomalies. The last time we had detente was under a condition of collapse and western democracy/capitalism looked like the only plausible alternative for them, which isn't the case anymore. Now China gives them a model and a patron.

So, for me, not helping Ukraine isn’t about certainty that Russia will expand next, but about bounding risk and not placing a bad bet on an unlikely transformation. Where the adminstration actually seems to be going though is to be adopting bit of Russia's "near-abroad" strategy ourselves and returning to multi-polar politics and letting them have their corner of the world (as they see it, Eastern Europe).
Yeah, I think that’s exactly the point & it’s not an accident. Outlets like the Daily Mail don’t need to invent facts. They just pick the most emotionally loaded reading of an ambiguous term and let the audience do the rest. “Trafficking” stays vague, “sex trafficking” lights the moral fuse, and by the time anyone checks details the thread has already done the work for them.

Btw, Placekicker (OP) disappearing is part of the pattern. The post isn’t there to discuss, it’s there to trigger and harvest reactions.
lol yes. Nobody’s denying abuse exists. The problem is that “trafficking” now covers everything from custody disputes to cartel shite, so everyone’s yelling about a different movie in their head.
Ah, the wait and see if Russia gets less nationalist/imperialist strategy. :lol:
quote:

It seems there is almost universal agreement in this thread that Putin is really incapable of going any further. Or at least he will be by the time this war is over. I also agree with it..but strangely enough, I've seen many of you say Putin won't stop in Ukraine and that's why it's so imperative to help them..... Strange.


Putin has ambitions beyond Ukraine. He lacks current capacity beyond Ukraine (aside from sabotage and frickery). Helping Ukraine deters Putin's taking further action on his ambitions. It's a containment strategy.
And the Satanic Panic is relevant to the thread. The OP was posted by a Q-baw. These threads get intense because "trafficking" is term that has multiple meanings - it means one thing to LEO's under still relatively new definitions that the public hasn't entirely caught up with, something else to average citizens, and something else entirely to anons (satanic ritualistic abuse among other related narratives).
quote:

Candace is so crazy she makes AJ sound sane.


There are incentives for this. Somewhere out there who isn't batshit is someone with their eyes on a massive platform they can build by performing more extreme batshittery than Candace.