Changes in our bodies that we cannot explain are worth tracking and discussing with a medical professional.

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

And while I certainly don’t want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it’s worth noting that legally speaking they’re both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It’s not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.

I’m glad you took it in the spirit it was intended. (Slightly chiding, but well-meaning.)

I think it can be really hard to not pass on our bad habits to our kids. Mine have a room just as messy as mine ever was, and they’re at least as bad at doing their homework as I ever was.

Good job so far!

But neither wants to eat them.

Respectfully, if neither of your children have a vegetable* dish they will eat as a snack you haven’t exposed them to a wide enough array of vegetables and vegetables preparation methods.

Don’t be afraid to add salt, roast instead of boil, or just experiment with things you haven’t tried.

(*: And “vegetable” here is strictly in a culinary context, excluding grains and near-grains like potatoes and including savory sead-bearing plant-parts like cucumbers. But if they don’t even like a form of potato or a grain, you may have a eating disorder on your hand…)

No, because that’s already the constitutional quorum. You could alter or abandon the cloture rule, however.

Changing Senate rules can be done as a simple act of the Senate, with a simple majority of the senators who show up voting in the affirmative (and VPOTUS casting a tiebreaker.)

Don’t hold your breath, however. Unless the 2026 blue wave results in 70 democratic senators who can remove trump after impeachment, the incentive to radically change anything is dramatically reduced.

Like the other dude said, if your only argument is “OMG, everybody knows that corporations are evil, they must be selling poison”, that doesn’t rise to the level of obvious.

It’s like saying that since the US federal government in the 60s was racist and transphobic, they must have faked the moon landing.

If it were “obvious” that a sugar substitute was dangerous, the sugar companies would have trumpeted that as loudly as they could.

do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?

It wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was a genuine statement of fraternal love, as Jesus taught His followers to strive for.

You don’t have a “claim”, you have an anti-christian (and anti-relgious) bias I suspect I couldn’t talk you out of with a time-travelling phone box and a univerally-translating fish.

I hope whatever hurt you can’t hurt you anymore, and that you find love and joy in your life.

Value for resources is also highly subjective.

If I have zero water and $50, but you have 50 waters and $0, I would value one of your waters more than one of my dollars and you would value one of my dollars more than one of your waters. And so we would trade, and both be happier for it.

Science is not a search for truth. It’s a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.

The beauty about actual science, as opposed to the fanfic and bragging that scientists need to publish to get paid, is that we can resolve contradictory theorems through experimentation

Massachusetts and NY raised taxes on the rich, and yet their revenues did not plummet.

Is there any contrary instance we can find where taxes were raised on the rich specifically and revenues dropped?

(And if so, get the academics back to refine their theories, make more predictions, and let’s see who’s more accurate!)

Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the “why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers” post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.

The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God’s law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.

Most Jews and Christians don’t require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn’t violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn’t even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)

(It’s between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you’d like to ask.)

Agreed completely.

There are folk for whom reductio ad absurdum is a personal attack, and those for whom it’s a perfectly reasonable form of asking for refinement.

To pick an easy example – if we support neo-genders, we absolutely should treat someone who claims to “identify as an attack helicopter” as such and strive to use their claimed neo-pronouns. (Thankfully, one doesn’t need to support neo-genders to respect trans-gender and a-gender individuals or those unsure of their gender ).

It’s inhumane to deny the humanity of inhumane humans.

English is a funny language.

Eww. It’s a LLM travel agent.

So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they’re the problem?

I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

The only almost exception is in response to sea-lioning, when the request for an explanation is made in bad faith

But that’s what LMGTFY links are for.

http://lmgtfy2.com/?q=sealioning

This is why “I’m not going to explain it to you” is the biggest and reddest of all the red flags.

Ignorance is the natural state of all humans, and the whole point of language is so that you can help reduce that natural ignorance!

If we’re talking re-enacting the way the folks who wear historish costumes and blank-fire muskets at each other mean it, then the cutoff is “whatever the last war was fought locally and then ended.”

If you mean it the way the folks who wear even sillier costumes, drink, and walk around with swords mean it, then the cutoff is “whenever the clothes we want to wear were last plausibly worn.”

If you mean it the way a TV reporter, producer, or academic might mean it, however, there’s no cutoff beyond “isn’t happening now.”. (There’s a famous story about someone who won the lottery after playing on a whim, was egged on by a reporter to re-enact buying the ticket, and won again.)

That’s not a religion paper. Those actually cite the numbered verses or church decrees that support their position.

(And, just to be clear, you can’t cite any Bible verses about Jesus being transphobic because He wasn’t. All the gospels report Him saying are “don’t stone adulterers”, “divorce and emotional cheating are bad”, and “love each other as you love yourselves”.)