And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn’t really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like “freedom” and “liberty” are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
Not a gun nut. But these studies don’t actually test any hypothesis about defensive gun use.
It is easily probable that it is simply the case that people obtain firearms for defense against an existing threat or are the threat themselves( i.e are susceptible to far greater violent events than the norm). In order to test that guns actually are ineffective in self-defense you need to compare it to actual incidents of violence towards the gun user.
People are always going to kill themselves, but programs like MAID make it more attractive to people that normally wouldn’t.
What is dignity and why is it morally relevant? I’ll even let you assume that dignity by definition requires a third-party to provide assistance in active killing.
Why not? That’s the logical conclusion.
Assisted suicide requires that one’s desire takes preeminence over any future value of existence and that society has a responsibility to satisfy this desire.
Adding a restriction on when you are allowed to assist in it (besides purely the subject’s immediate desire) is special pleading. This is why MAID in Canada is slippery sloping into euthanasia for all and any reason, because there is no actual barrier to it after they accepted the initial premises.
This is not true. I lived in one of the most conservative cities in the US for many years, and the Middle Eastern and African immigrants openly spoke whatever their native language is. They avoided it only in the typical circumstances, when other speakers weren’t around. This is not an actual concern for immigrants.
As for the level of xenophobia, it’s true a lot of people don’t like foreigners, but you are overstating the level of open opposition. Just like how a lot of people don’t like Trump supporters and even personally feel them to be fascists, but claiming that Trump supporters are not free to express their opinions is completely false.
If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.
Plenty? Some societies have partial nudity as the norm, but this is the far minority, and even then it’s partial.
“I quoted a source”
I can smash on a keyboard and then write a citation to whatever nonsense comes. An intelligent person cross-references it with well established facts, and then decides if it’s probably true.
The idea that US support for Israel started in the 80s is refuted by hundreds of data points in Israeli history.
“It’s rude and uncalled for”
It’s totally called for. You could literally have read the Wikipedia on history of modern Israel and seen that it was patently false.
Well, it’s as fabricated as any other logical construct. That doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
Formally teaching pure mathematics is a bit beyond the abilities of most children or even highschoolers.
It’s like how they don’t teach inductive reasoning and proofing in statistics class, 99 percent of the people that will use it either won’t understand or care.
“It needs to have a practical application”
This is what word problems are. Describing real situations mathematically and deriving more information from them.
I feel like everyone who blames the way mathematics was taught, simply wasn’t paying attention at the time.
Biological sex is generally considered to be distinct from gender.
Your sex isn’t exactly what’s holding you back.
Unless it’s edited, that seems to be the exact opposite of what they are saying. They even clarify using the same poor English.
Started? How geopolitically ignorant are you? A considerable portion of the IDF’s armaments (including over 100 fighter jets) during the Yom Kippur War were flown in from the US. This was seven years before Reagan. The entirety of Israel’s existence has just been the US and France dumping weapons. (Israel didn’t indigenously make it’s nuclear weapons, they came from France’s nuclear projects, just like how the Kfir wasn’t built using Israel’s non-existent aerospace industry).
This isn’t the mechanism of plumbism, but A+ for effort since we both know this was a Herculean task for you. Orators will recount the 11th labor of wildginger and the Lead Metaphors of Lemmy.
So concerned about pewter /= lead and yet this is a rigourous proof to you?
Sweetie, you’re not going to win any contest against me except in obesity.
Stop thinking you’re so special in a non-euphemistic way.
“Safe drinking pewter existences”
I know dipshit, unlike you I know not to eat 2kg of tuna a day. Whom am I talking to Karen Wetterhahn ca. 1997?1 The fact that pewter can be lead-free has no effect on the insult because pewter is classically a lead alloy and is generally considered as such in common parlance.
“Should I get you some crayons…you can draw a picture”
What is this? Everyone in the military knows that Marines eat crayons, how come a witticist as yourself can’t even seem to rise to the level of people who score a 70 on a grade 8 test?
Umm… No? The logical error you made was asserting the existence of an object. This specific object is highly improbable to exist, and since the purpose of your comment was to seem intelligent and witty it would have been better to assert the existence of a more probable object whose connection to neurological damage would be less obvious without specific knowledge.
It’s really sad when the people you interact with are so stupid they can’t even insult properly.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.